The F-35 is not dead

[mcrit]

the Americans still use B-52 is from the 50s and is still in active service

The B-52s of today bear only an exterior resemblence to the B-52s of the 50's. The avionics and systems inside a modern B-52 are what make it useable.

but I really don't understand the rational of spending money on war

You're not spending money on war, you're spending it on 'peace insurance' for lack of a better term. The best way to deter aggression is to project both the ability and the willingness to answer in kind.

[Moose47]

G'day mcrit

You may want to look again to see who really posted those quotes.

Cheers...Chris

[Diadem]

I'm not going to claim to be informed in all these matters, but I really don't understand the rational of spending money on war when we could be spending on exploring space or healing the sick etc. Perhaps I'm too much of an idealist. :-/

Military expenditures only seem like a poor use of money during peacetime, when obviously it isn't needed. It's like having insurance: you very rarely need it, and sometimes it seems like a waste of money, but when you really need it you're glad to have it. In the 1930s most western countries severely cut their military budgets to try to stave off bankruptcy during the Depression, and they spent nearly a decade playing catch-up with Germany. We can't really say what's going to happen over the next few decades, so why not have some modern equipment that's capable of handling any situation we could encounter? Perhaps the North Koreans or Iranians will get belligerent and start a war, or Syria could attack Turkey, perhaps even with Russian support, and Canada could end up supporting allies overseas; even if there's no risk to Canadian sovereignty, our military should be prepared to assist on UN and NATO missions (as we're legally obligated to do), and it should be equipped to handle the most modern Eastern Bloc weapons and aircraft. If we really wanted to save money, we could still be using Sherman tanks and Hurricane fighters, but what use is outdated equipment? We could certainly get rid of the military altogether, or reserve it for self-defence only, but, besides being required by treaty to assist other NATO countries in the event of attack, Canada's military role over the last century has been much more altruistic. We haven't had an armed conflict on Canadian soil, excluding perhaps the October Crisis and Oka, since 1885, and nearly every time our military has gone to war it has been to defend a country which was invaded. The First World War, Second World War, Korean War and Gulf War are all examples of this, as well as hundreds of peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian operations around the world which benefited Canada in no tangible way. Even the Afghan War can be seen as an attempt to improve the lives of foreigners, although the extent to which that was accomplished is debatable. I think this is a much higher calling for our soldiers, sailors and airmen than just protecting our borders from invasion, and when I was in the CF I and my friends viewed our role as being much more than just a Canadian defence force.

[frosti]

The F-18s we have need replacement, but why do we even need a drastic upgrade to top of the line?

You are right, lets spend more money on second-rate aircraft that cost the same if not more than your top of the line F35. We don't buy aircraft based on personal, 'I don't like it', reasons.

I'm not going to claim to be informed in all these matters

At least you are honest.

but I really don't understand the rational of spending money on war when we could be spending on exploring space or healing the sick etc. Perhaps I'm too much of an idealist. :-/

Or perhaps you are a little out of touch from reality. Life isn't all happy rainbows and sunshine.

[North Shore]

In the 1930s most western countries severely cut their military budgets to try to stave off bankruptcy during the Depression, and they spent nearly a decade playing catch-up with Germany.

And look what happened to the big spenders (Germany)...

[iflyforpie]

In the 1930s most western countries severely cut their military budgets to try to stave off bankruptcy during the Depression, and they spent nearly a decade playing catch-up with Germany.

And look what happened to the big spenders (Germany)...

And the Soviet Union.... and the US for that matter....

[Tom H]

In the 1930s most western countries severely cut their military budgets to try to stave off bankruptcy during the Depression, and they spent nearly a decade playing catch-up with Germany.

And look what happened to the big spenders (Germany)...

And the Soviet Union.... and the US for that matter....

Uh....historically speaking

I think if you look it up (I haven't in a long time and I am going by memory) Germany, Japan and Italy were not the big spenders in the Second World War.

Sure in the 30s they spent their money on building overwhelming forces to engage in their hostile expansions...but it was the allies that ended up having to pour the money to it and catch up.

In the end to defeat the enemy forces the allies had to vastly outproduce and as a result outspend the axis.

Post War the allies (particularly the US with the Marshall plan) ended up financing the rebuilding of Europe, including Germany, to return them to stability. In the Pacific theater it was pretty much the USA all by their lonesome that put Japan and much of China back on their feet.

Now if we (the allies) had kept pace with Germany and Japan's build up and upgrades to latest technologies I wonder if we would have had a Second World War? The axis may very well have not chanced it if the allies had strong forces (instead of old tech budget cut downsized ones) and hard line diplomacy (instead of "Peace in our time").

While we will never know it sure seems like that "Peace Insurance" metaphor has something going for it.

That said...I still think the F-35 is the wrong bird for the job.

In my highly biased personal opinion

Tom H

[Old Dog Flying]

Mcrit: I did not post your "Quote"...being retired RCAF, there is no way that I could ever be accused of making a comment like that.

Proud of my military background
Barney

[Instructor_Mike]

You are right, lets spend more money on second-rate aircraft that cost the same if not more than your top of the line F35. We don't buy aircraft based on personal, 'I don't like it', reasons.

It's not just a "I don't like it" nor am I saying outright that they will not be purchased because I say so, I'm simply voicing my view that I think there are likely cheaper alternatives. We also don't know what the F-35 will cost so it's a bit presumptuous to assume it would cost the same as any alternative.

Or perhaps you are a little out of touch from reality. Life isn't all happy rainbows and sunshine.

I think that's going a little far. I'll admit to being a little idealistic but that's a stretch from being out of touch. I understand having a defensive force to patrol our borders but if we only need aerial scouts, they don't even need to go as far as being armed. Keep the fighters on standby and possibly save money that way. I'm just kind of spit balling ideas because it seems to me like some people are a little to gun ho for the newest and fanciest toy without looking at alternatives.

On a personal level I've lived with the idea that if I'm not the first to pick up a weapon then no one needs to pick up the second. The obvious flaw with that idea is it's based off the assumption the other side will be rational and humans are by default not always rational (myself included).

As far as NATO and the UN, I think we should keep our obligations but that does that mean we need to send in fighter/attack aircraft? What about using our transport aircraft for logistical support instead?

Bottom line: I'm not saying anyone is stupid for wanting to support the F-35 and I'm not attacking anyone personally. I just haven't seen enough evidence to want to support it myself and always want to consider alternatives.

[Diadem]

And look what happened to the big spenders (Germany)...

And the Soviet Union.... and the US for that matter....

Uh....historically speaking

I think if you look it up (I haven't in a long time and I am going by memory) Germany, Japan and Italy were not the big spenders in the Second World War.

Sure in the 30s they spent their money on building overwhelming forces to engage in their hostile expansions...but it was the allies that ended up having to pour the money to it and catch up.

In the end to defeat the enemy forces the allies had to vastly outproduce and as a result outspend the axis.

Post War the allies (particularly the US with the Marshall plan) ended up financing the rebuilding of Europe, including Germany, to return them to stability. In the Pacific theater it was pretty much the USA all by their lonesome that put Japan and much of China back on their feet.

Now if we (the allies) had kept pace with Germany and Japan's build up and upgrades to latest technologies I wonder if we would have had a Second World War? The axis may very well have not chanced it if the allies had strong forces (instead of old tech budget cut downsized ones) and hard line diplomacy (instead of "Peace in our time").

While we will never know it sure seems like that "Peace Insurance" metaphor has something going for it.

That said...I still think the F-35 is the wrong bird for the job.

In my highly biased personal opinion

Tom H

Precisely. It wasn't a matter of Germany spending more, it was a matter of Germany putting in small investments over a period of six years to ensure they were technologically superior to the Allies by 1939. Compare the tanks used by each side in North Africa; the British and American designs were perpetually under-gunned because they were always a step behind their German counterparts, and the Allies couldn't really produce a match for the Tiger until after the war ended. Compare the Bf-109 to the Hurricane; even when the Spitfire and Mustang entered operational service, they were barely able to handle the 109, despite being three and five years more modern, respectively. The technological disparity wasn't evened out until 1945, and that was only because the Germans had been continuously pummeled for six years. Despite that, they still produced the first operational jet aircraft and ballistic missile, and were arguably nearing the ability to build a nuclear weapon. The Allies beat them through sheer volume, and the only things that let the Germans hold on for as long as they did despite overwhelming opposing odds were greatly advanced technology and superior strategy resulting from years of preparation. If the Allies had kept pace in the first place, war may have been averted, or may have ended much quicker than it did. Having older, less-capable technology never gives one an advantage, regardless of whether that technology is an F-35.

[Diadem]

I think that's going a little far. I'll admit to being a little idealistic but that's a stretch from being out of touch. I understand having a defensive force to patrol our borders but if we only need aerial scouts, they don't even need to go as far as being armed. Keep the fighters on standby and possibly save money that way. I'm just kind of spit balling ideas because it seems to me like some people are a little to gun ho for the newest and fanciest toy without looking at alternatives.

On a personal level I've lived with the idea that if I'm not the first to pick up a weapon then no one needs to pick up the second. The obvious flaw with that idea is it's based off the assumption the other side will be rational and humans are by default not always rational (myself included).

As far as NATO and the UN, I think we should keep our obligations but that does that mean we need to send in fighter/attack aircraft? What about using our transport aircraft for logistical support instead?

Bottom line: I'm not saying anyone is stupid for wanting to support the F-35 and I'm not attacking anyone personally. I just haven't seen enough evidence to want to support it myself and always want to consider alternatives.

I think it's going a little far to assume that because I endorse the F-35 it's only because I want the newest and fanciest toy (not me personally, but supporters of the F-35). I'm a huge fan of the Eurofighter and Gripen, but I've been following developments in modern fighter aircraft for the last decade and my research has led me to believe the F-35 is the best aircraft available for Canada's needs; that's my unbiased, as-objective-as-I-can-get opinion.
Who ever said "we only need aerial scouts"? That's definitely not the only mission for which Canada's fighters have been designated. The F-35 is more than just a fighter, it's a multi-role aircraft with superior ground-attack capabilities; CF-18s have been used in that role in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Libya, despite not being ideally suited for it (i.e. no precision-guided bombs in the Gulf War). The F-35 was designed with that in mind, and having an aircraft with those capabilities, which is so good at those missions that it can replace the A-10, AV-8B, F-117, F-16, Harrier and GR-7 (not to mention the F-18), makes far more sense than pressing a fighter into a role for which it isn't ideally suited. If Canada can only purchase one aircraft, it would make sense to have the one which has been designed specifically with the ability to handle just about every mission; even the US military is replacing its wide variety of specialized aircraft with the F-35 because it's better than all of them combined. Canada's fighters aren't just "aerial scouts", which is precisely why we need more than unarmed drones.
As for NATO, it would be lovely to be able to just throw a few kind words of support at our allies in the event of an armed conflict, but the whole concept behind the North Atlantic Treaty is reciprocation: every signatory, including Canada, can rest assured that they'll receive the assistance of every other signatory in the event of an attack. If we weren't willing to provide substantial assistance to our closest allies, why would they bother coming to our aide when it's needed? Having a capable military with the ability to carry out combat operations demonstrates to the other NATO countries that we aren't just parasites taking advantage of our geographical position to let others defend us. More than that, our allies' survival and prosperity is in our best interest, and being able to actually help them in their time of greatest need is essential to us keeping our friends and trading partners. Imagine if your best friend were getting beaten up by a large man with an accent, and as he struggled for survival you tossed him an ice pack and some words of support instead of stepping in to do something; you wouldn't have a best friend for very long, and that large man could then be coming for you. We aren't an island, and if our closest allies fall it won't merely be a matter of turning to find someone else with whom to align ourselves. We're stronger if we stand together, but only if we actually stand together and don't fragment to cover our own asses.

[Instructor_Mike]

I only said it was just an impression I received from some of the supporters of the F-35. I don't think all the supporters are like that of course.

My comment about aerial scouts was about the need to patrol our borders, and I said we would probably still need fighters on stand by anyway. Maybe it just made more sense in my head

In your idea of the guy attacking your best friend you have to consider that if we have NATO or the UN support. You don't need 3 people with guns. You might need 2 people with guns then a doctor to help patch up after the fact. I'm just saying we don't need to be charging in with a gun to be supportive.

Plus, how do you know if your "friend" didn't bring it on himself? Maybe I'm reading into the analogy too far but does it even matter if the person had an accent? What if they had a British, or American accent?

The idea that we need to defend ourselves so aggressively is based on the assumption we could even slow down an invading force. From what I understand even if we had 50 active F-35s it wouldn't put a scratch into the force of the Russians if they really wanted to come over the cap (assuming they did). It also seems to me like the fear of invasion is blown out of proportion.

As far as group defense I would agree and that is why I'm not suggesting we decommission our military entirely and just let others worry about it for us. The trick with having reciprocation at the ready is it makes me think of the missile gap and mutually assured destruction if it were to go too far. Old thinking perhaps but a line needs to be drawn between self defense and intimidation causing the other side to intimidate back and further escalation.

[2R]

If a small country like Sweden can design and build its own world class fighter, What is holding Canada back ?

[Rockie]

The F-35 is more than just a fighter, it's a multi-role aircraft with superior ground-attack capabilities; CF-18s have been used in that role in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Libya, despite not being ideally suited for it (i.e. no precision-guided bombs in the Gulf War).

The CF-18 is a specifically designed multi-role aircraft just like the F-35 and it has always been capable of using the entire suite of precision guided munitions. We just didn't have any during the first gulf war, and even then we only bought enough of them to be able to claim we had them but quickly ran out when we actually started to use them in Kosovo. The reason we didn't have them is of course because of cost.

There are other options out there that may be a better fit for Canada for all kinds of reasons but we haven't seriously looked at them yet. Until those options have been looked at and until the actual cost of the F-35 has been assessed nobody can say it is the only airplane that fits Canada's requirements.

That's kind of the whole problem with this entire fiasco that even the government is falling all over themselves backpedaling for.

[Old fella]

My fearless prediction this F-35 procurement file will go ahead despite the price tag and rebuttals. It will be interesting to see in 20-30 years ahead when archives/documents are made available because there will be some vindication for those who did question the cash outlay and justification in doing so. Don’t forget we are still in this 9/11 decade of war on terror/beard turban bomb under every rock/soft on commies (read China)/school girls in Afghanistan/despots in Africa/decade of darkness/scumbags etc.etc., so the Military will get whatever it wants. The current opposition in our Parliament are really powerless (CPC Harper majority), not united so each fear the “soft on………” and “don’t support the troops” syndrome. It’s left to the PBO/AG/KPMG to raise any serious questions……….. but to no avail. Just as well to suck it up, deal with the 40B projected, probably even much higher when all is said and done…

Over and Out!!!

[2R]

Fearless prediction ,my bottom.You are only going along with the programme, to avoid the re-education camps that the government is building to re-educate any one who disagrees with the official party policies

[Old fella]

Fearless prediction ,my bottom.You are only going along with the programme, to avoid the re-education camps that the government is building to re-educate any one who disagrees with the official party policies

........... better still, opposition unit then get elected, Harper and CPC out of office, then cancel the 'effing" project. Ya go 2 years to do it.

[frosti]

If a small country like Sweden can design and build its own world class fighter, What is holding Canada back ?

Sweden is doing great with sales of the Gripen NG, right? I hope you realize the ones supporting the modernized Arrow program are those who will not be funding or operating the things, right? Basically those who's opinion doesn't matter.

My comment about aerial scouts was about the need to patrol our borders, and I said we would probably still need fighters on stand by anyway. Maybe it just made more sense in my head

Whatever way you look at it, the Canadian Forces isn't an eagle scouts group or public service of Canada. We need the most modern tools to do our jobs - kill people. The F35 is the best tool for that job for the best price. Once all the costs are added up for the other, obsolete aircraft, we'll see just how much of a bargain the F35 is for what it can do.

[Old Dog Flying]

I would like to know exactly what the CF-5 "Tinker Toy" cost us just to appease the wimps. It really served no usful purpose and cost a bundle. Then the government did a very costly re-fit and upgrade then put them into storage with the hope of selling them to a fourth world country. I believe that we are still paying for them.

Just remember what the politicians have been doing over the years with the Seakings, Cormorant, and now new SAR aircraft. "You cancelled mine so now I'll cancel yours"..the game goes on

Also for the pacifist types, just remember that your freedoms come at one hellofa cost so suck it up and quit the whinning...this thread is beginning to sound like a room full of Terminal controllers at the end of the day, they never stop whinning/

[Mach1]

Thanks for the response... so there is no real standard when it comes to government acquisition costing. '

I'm a bit of a pacifist and an idealist myself but, I have to question some things that come from those against the whole F-35 program... or so it would seem they are against it:

What is the cost of advancement? The entire space program was killed by people who thought it didn't merit the money yet, almost every item you use today originated to serve the Apollo missions of the late 60's and early 70's. Today, in aircraft, we have available a multitude of technology that was all derived for military use. There is a technological trickle down that eventually has commercial application for all of this military development. Putting the whole war hammer aside, putting aside our political beliefs, putting aside our views on defence... should we stand aside and let everyone else in the world develop the next generation of equipment that will be used on commercial aircraft in the future?

I think we want to be a part of the team that develops the next Heads Up Display that allows me to look through the aircraft to see what is around me, to see through clouds, to have better communications with the aircraft around me.... I know it's not a short term view, but in the long game (assuming no major wars or zombie apocalypse) that one wants to be innovating or one is falling behind. All of that comes at a cost... it's called Research and Development. Usually, R&D is so expensive it comes out of a tax payers cheque... but the results can return more cash to the land than your tax money ever would... I guess, the question is, do you want to be a leader or a follower in the word economy? |Whether we like it or not, military spending has commercial and civil spin offs. I would rather it the space program than the the military, but such is the way of the world right now.

So many 'Experts' on this board, I am sure be engulfed in flames soon... but think about the tech side that we are opening up by signing onto the the latest and greatest. Yes, it's a gamble, but without risk, there is no reward.

[frosti]

... but think about the tech side that we are opening up by signing onto the the latest and greatest. Yes, it's a gamble, but without risk, there is no reward.

Agreed. One of the reasons why I'm a big supporter of the F-35 is not just the tech, which is decades ahead of older gen aircraft, but the acquisition price. When we sign onto the program officially in 2016 the F-35 will be in full-scale production, meaning that it will be cheapest then. The small marginal price difference is negligible considering all the advantages the F35 has over the other fighters. We are talking a maximum of maybe $10-15 million per aircraft more which is nothing in the long run for having the best aircraft patrolling Canada for the next half-century. You'd either A: have to be naive not to support it or B: have a personal bias against the F-35 for whatever reason.

[YYZSaabGuy]

You'd either A: have to be naive not to support it or B: have a personal bias against the F-35 for whatever reason.

How about C: unwilling to support a multibillion dollar, multi-year procurement program based solely on DND's say-so, without a careful and public review of the alternatives.
Refusing to drink your koolaid makes me neither naive nor biased, so enough with the name-calling and the snotty attitude already.

[ozone]

Here's what we need...

http://www.superarrow.ca

[iflyforpie]

Oh please, not the Super Arrow.


The F-35 may be more relevant further into its operational life, but I'm willing to bet that either we will be buying new fighters before its projected retirement, or greatly reducing our operational commitments based on our historical usage and attrition of other fighter types.

Remember is was the CAF that discovered the problems with the Hornet because the the high number of hard hours these planes accrued early in their lives. It was the same story with the one oh wonder... trading them back to the US for older but lower time airframes in operation Peace Wings.

How are we going to keep our commitments with a mere 65 planes? The RCAF might become a purely domestic Air Force just as a result of our choosing that aircraft. I also am willing to bet that at least some of its cutting edge technology will wither as upgrades are deferred... much like our Hornets.

And how do we define what the best aircraft is? The CF-18 was a cheaper alternative to the F-15... which in turn was a cheaper and more effective alternative to the F-111.... an aircraft that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara promised would be cheaper and more effective than anything else for years. As for the F-111, The Brits dumped it, the US Navy dumped it, the Australians waited for years to get it and never really needed it while it stole money from more important projects, and it never once did the job it was created to do.

I said it before in the other thread.... the cost of technology is going to drive more and more nations out of the cutting edge fighter business. The Americans already flinched at the F-22... the F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history and it isn't finished yet. .. and Boeing is waiting in the wings with the Silent Eagle in expectation that the F-35 will prove too exensive for most nations. Already, only a handful of NATO nations have expressed interest in the F-35... far from all, and lots of those nations are under severe austerity measures.

We also don't know what the future will bring which is why it might be a good idea to hedge your bets. In the 1950s, high flying hypersonic aircraft were the future, but the faster advances in missile technology forced airforces to switch to low level penetration. Could not a similar advance be waiting in missiles and radars or other sensors that can defeat stealth technology?

[Rockie]

One of the reasons why I'm a big supporter of the F-35 is not just the tech, which is decades ahead of older gen aircraft, but the acquisition price.

What really fascinates me is that you know the acquisition price of the F-35 when nobody else - including the US government - does. I mean besides the fact that it's already spiraled into the most expensive fighter aircraft program in history and has five years more to go in development. Everybody knows that.

How do you do it?