$9 Billion No-Bid Contract for 65 F-35s

Bonam · July 20, 2010

and in WW1 it 10 hrs training or something like that but those days are long gone...no recruit is going to find himself at flying solo missions the controls of 60 million+ fighter in 10-12 weeks and serious war with an equally equipped opponent will be over long before training of a pilot is completed...

first 6 months of training is an elimination process weeding out the unsuitable and that overlooks it's damn hard to get a shot at it....first you need to be a near perfect physical specimen, a friend of mine tried a week long physical testing, one fail and your out no second chances...

This is definitely true... the pilot training process is long, intensive, and expensive. The cost might not be $60 million per pilot, but it is definitely in the millions, and it takes much much longer (years) than rolling fighters off the assembly line. I know several pilots in the USAF, one F-16 pilot among them, and they trained like hell for years to get to where they are.

wyly · July 20, 2010

And you don't need a complement the size of that on the Wasp. That was just an example. The British are building a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier that's almost the same size as the American Nimitz carrier that only requires a complement of 600 - compared to nearly 5000 on the Nimitz. The french Mistral carrier has a complement of 160. And if you think that's too much, consider that Australia, a country with only about two thirds of our population and a smalller economy, is building two Canberra class carriers.

geography for those countries is different than for Canada we have no nearby neighbours that would require us to have a carrier, carriers are offensive weapons and where are located on the globe negates the need for them..

In a natural disaster, the hardest hit areas where people need help the most are usually the harest to reach. Chinooks, which I doubt the JSS will be able to hold, can fill the role of reaching these areas, and a carrier can serve as a base of operations for the Chinooks.
Should the Canadian Air Force be called upon to serve in a conflict, again, a carrier can be used as a base of operations outside of Canada for fighter jets and the JSS can't. I remember reading about how the Canadian government was considering sending F-18s to Afghanistan, but it was plagued with problems. Granted Afghanistan is a land locked country, but in most cases, a carrier would eliminate logistical and basing problems.

Without a carrier, or for people that want to argue semantics, amphibious assault ship, you can kiss these important capabilities good bye. Meanwhile, many of our allies, including one smaller than Canada, are building these ships.

As for cost, they're far less expensive than fighter jets and create jobs in Canada.

what natural disasters in Canada would require a carrier, everything can be accessed from land or by air quickly....to help overseas we would need to build a number and station them around the globe to be effective...two to three weeks sailing from a Canadian port to remote places isn't feasible financially or practical if time is urgent.... the USA has fleets all over the globe which is why they can do it in a timely manner...

Smallc · July 20, 2010

The JSS is supposed tobe able to land Chinooks. The JSS wil serve Canada's needs. We don't have the ability to crew more than about 30 ships.....we can't evn crew those.

justme · July 20, 2010

geography for those countries is different than for Canada we have no nearby neighbours that would require us to have a carrier, carriers are offensive weapons and where are located on the globe negates the need for them..

Offensive weapons in the armed forces? Oh my god, what a shock! Go hug a tree.

Are Chinooks or C-17s offensive? No, but what they can hold may be. Likewise, a carrier simply gives greater ability to deploy, and Canadian fighter jets do get involved in overseas operations, such as Kosovo and Desert Storm.

what natural disasters in Canada would require a carrier, everything can be accessed from land or by air quickly....to help overseas we would need to build a number and station them around the globe to be effective...two to three weeks sailing from a Canadian port to remote places isn't feasible financially or practical if time is urgent.... the USA has fleets all over the globe which is why they can do it in a timely manner...

Really? That's why the Canadian navy was involved in the response to the earthquake in Haiti and Katrina in the US.

justme · July 20, 2010

The JSS wil serve Canada's needs.

And you know more about it than Rick Hillier.

justme · July 20, 2010

The JSS is supposed tobe able to land Chinooks.

"The operation of up to four Maritime Helicopters"

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/10/10-a_eng.asp?id=463

That means four of the same helicopter found on frigates: the Sea King or the replacement - CH148 Cyclone - not Chinooks.

We don't have the ability to crew more than about 30 ships.....we can't evn crew those.

You keep trying to make that arguement, but a flat deck for more aircraft doesn't require more crew. The JSS has a "standard crew of up to 165 people" and the french Mistral carrier has a crew of 160. Since many of the capabilities, aside from air lift, are redundant between the JSS and a carrier, chop the JSS down to 2 ships from 3, add 2 carriers, and you have an increase of only 1 ship with a whopping 160 additional crew required - give or take.

Smallc · July 20, 2010

And you know more about it than Rick Hillier.

And he knows more about it than the navy? He was never in the navy.

Smallc · July 20, 2010

"The operation of up to four Maritime Helicopters"

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/10/10-a_eng.asp?id=463

That means four of the same helicopter found on frigates: the Sea King or the replacement - CH148 Cyclone - not Chinooks.

The current ships can land and fuel griffons. If the deck is big enough on the JSS (it's supposed to be), it will be able to land and fuel Chinooks. It could carry them on the deck if necessary, also. It will meet the needs we have without the cost of an additional platform.

You keep trying to make that arguement, but a flat deck for more aircraft doesn't require more crew. The JSS has a "standard crew of up to 165 people" and the french Mistral carrier has a crew of 160. Since many of the capabilities, aside from air lift, are redundant between the JSS and a carrier, chop the JSS down to 2 ships from 3, add 2 carriers, and you have an increase of only 1 ship with a whopping 160 additional crew required - give or take.

It's a whole extra ship, and we don't have the crew for the current ones because people don't want to join the navy over the army and airforce (well, I would...but). Also, we're probably only getting 2 JSS.....because we don't have the money for more.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Smallc

justme · July 20, 2010

And he knows more about it than the navy? He was never in the navy.

He was only the Chief of the Defence Staff, and one of the best.

justme · July 20, 2010

The current ships can land and fuel griffons. If the deck is big enough on the JSS (it's supposed to be), it will be able to land and fuel Chinooks. It could carry them on the deck if necessary, also. It will meet the needs we have without the cost of an additional platform.

Griffons? Do you even bother to research what you're talking about? The navy uses Sea Kings, which will be replaced by Cyclones, and neither are near the capability of a Chinook. Maybe you can squeeze a Chinook on the JSS... whoop dee doo. There's no comparison between that and having half a dozen Chinooks and, if necessary, fighter jets.

It's a whole extra ship, and we don't have the crew for the current ones because people don't want to join the navy over the army and airforce (well, I would...but). Also, we're probably only getting 2 JSS.....because we don't have the money for more.

A whole extra crew of 160 with the armed forces being increased by the thousands. And maybe people would want to join the navy if they weren't using 40 year old ships. Peter MacKay makes a good point that having new equipment helps with recruitment.

Two ships with the option to buy a third, and plans to replace/add other ships as well.

With regards to the cost, as I've already stated, it will creat jobs in Canada, and good paying jobs also means taxes going back to the government. It would be good for the people that it would employ and good for the country. And a couple billion on ships is peanuts compared to $16 billion on fighter jets. This is not to suggest that I think the fighter jets are a waste of money, I don't, but let's put things in context.

Edited July 20, 2010 by justme

Moonbox · July 20, 2010

Offensive weapons in the armed forces? Oh my god, what a shock! Go hug a tree.

Hahahaa nicely done. I like what you're doing here. Keep it up.

Smallc · July 20, 2010

Griffons? Do you even bother to research what you're talking about? The navy uses Sea Kings, which will be replaced by Cyclones, and neither are near the capability of a Chinook. Maybe you can squeeze a Chinook on the JSS... whoop dee doo. There's no comparison between that and having half a dozen Chinooks and, if necessary, fighter jets.

I know what all of the helicopters are...I was simply stating what the craft is supposed to be able to do. It's supposed to be able to land and fuel Chinooks...and the fighter jets we're getting couldn't land on a carrier.

A whole extra crew of 160 with the armed forces being increased by the thousands. And maybe people would want to join the navy if they weren't using 40 year old ships. Peter MacKay makes a good point that having new equipment helps with recruitment.

The navy isn't being increased in numbers....and most people aren't on 40 year old ships. The Halifax, Kingston, Orca, and Victoria classes are not anywhere near that.

Two ships with the option to buy a third, and plans to replace/add other ships as well.

All of the Navy's ships will be replaced....33 ships replaced with, at most, 26.

With regards to the cost, as I've already stated, it will creat jobs in Canada, and good paying jobs also means taxes going back to the government. It would be good for the people that it would employ and good for the country. And a couple billion on ships is peanuts compared to $16 billion on fighter jets. This is not to suggest that I think the fighter jets are a waste of money, I don't, but let's put things in context.

The money isn't there. We don't have unlimited resources. Something else will have to give, and quite frankly, there are more impressive ships.

justme · July 21, 2010

I know what all of the helicopters are...I was simply stating what the craft is supposed to be able to do. It's supposed to be able to land and fuel Chinooks...and the fighter jets we're getting couldn't land on a carrier.

Ok, so what does the Griffon have to do with comparing the helicopters that are being used to Chinooks?

You say it's supposed to land and fuel Chinooks, but the capabilities listed on the official navy website states that it holds a maximum of four smaller helicopters. I've already provided a link in a previous post.

To the best of my knowledge, the government hasn't announced which variant of the F-35 they are buying. Can you provide a link to such an announcement?

The F-35B can take off and land vertically thus eliminating the need for a long runway or catapult system.

In 2004 a review by the Australian Parliament's Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that the Australian government should consider purchasing a small number of F-35B Lightning II‎ for the Fleet Air Arm to operate from the Canberra class ships.
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's recommendation was made on the grounds that STOVL aircraft would provide deployed Australian forces with air defence and close air support. Despite the slight reduction in range and payload of STOVL F-35B compared to CTOL F-35A (and C) aircraft, they are inherently flexible in terms of operation, and can provide organic close air support right at the edge of the Field of Battle Area, which land based aircraft cannot do. An order of F-35Bs for the Canberra class could form part of the planned order of up to 100 F-35s for the Royal Australian Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_landing_helicopter_dock

Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship (Prince of Wales) will be the first super-carriers and the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. They are multi purpose carriers that can adapt to complete multiple roles. Capable of carrying forty aircraft (the F-35B Lightning II) or twenty five Chinook helicopters, they will provide a major capability upgrade from the current Invincible class carriers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_%28CVF%29

The navy isn't being increased in numbers....

Regular armed forces are being increased to 70,000 and you're arguing that they can't come up with a few hundred people to man a couple carriers? Come on... You also argued that most people prefer the air force, but the whole point of having carriers is to carry aircraft. It stands to reason, by your own argument, that there'd be more interest in the navy if it had carriers.

...and most people aren't on 40 year old ships.

Ok, the largest ships are around 40 years old, and the subs are lemons. A dozen frigates do most of the heavy lifting - with helicopters that are nearly 50 years old. That better?

All of the Navy's ships will be replaced....33 ships replaced with, at most, 26.
The money isn't there. We don't have unlimited resources. Something else will have to give....

Since 2006, Ottawa has had plans to build 28 large ships over the next several decades, at a cost of more than $33 billion, as well as more than 100 smaller ships.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/14/government-shipbuilding-strategy.html

And that might sound like a lot of money, but it works out to about a billion per year, which is about the same amount of money that the government spends on the CBC. Can't possibly spend more money on defence than the left's mouth piece and recruitment office for Liberal Governor Generals? Is that right?

...and quite frankly, there are more impressive ships.

Such as?

Smallc · July 21, 2010

Ok, so what does the Griffon have to do with comparing the helicopters that are being used to Chinooks?

You say it's supposed to land and fuel Chinooks, but the capabilities listed on the official navy website states that it holds a maximum of four smaller helicopters. I've already provided a link in a previous post.

The idea is for it to be bale to land chinooks and carry them as cargo possibly. Some of the original pictures even show it.

To the best of my knowledge, the government hasn't announced which variant of the F-35 they are buying. Can you provide a link to such an announcement?

It will be the A. The B will be far too expensive for the price quoted, and the B is lacking many things that the A has. The only other thing it could be (and maybe should be, since we lack at current the ability to refuel the A in the air) is the C.

The F-35B can take off and land vertically thus eliminating the need for a long runway or catapult system.

We won't be getting that, You can count on it. It lacks range and a gun.

Regular armed forces are being increased to 70,000 and you're arguing that they can't come up with a few hundred people to man a couple carriers? Come on... You also argued that most people prefer the air force, but the whole point of having carriers is to carry aircraft. It stands to reason, by your own argument, that there'd be more interest in the navy if it had carriers.

We aren't going to have carriers....the navy is hurting for people.

Ok, the largest ships are around 40 years old, and the subs are lemons. A dozen frigates do most of the heavy lifting - with helicopters that are nearly 50 years old. That better?

Only the supply ships and destroyers are 40 years old...and the navy loves the subs. Once they;re finally going, they'll be great. That's why they are one of their top priorities.

And that might sound like a lot of money, but it works out to about a billion per year, which is about the same amount of money that the government spends on the CBC. Can't possibly spend more money on defence than the left's mouth piece and recruitment office for Liberal Governor Generals? Is that right?

We already spend over $20B per year on the military. Cut the CBC, fine, but we also have a deficit....or have you forgotten?

Such as?

I meant to say important. Replacing out at sea power is more important than creating some kind of new offensive power. I don't see what need Canada has for these ships. The JSS can fill all of the roles needed other than first strike. Even if it can't carry chinooks, it is supposed to be able to support them just as the current ships can support the griffon even though they don't carry them. The JSS will be used for refuelling, cargo, command and control, humanitarian relief, and will be able to be outfitted as a field hospital. I don't know what else we need exactly. It isn't a pissing contest over trying to have the best stuff, I don't think. There are far more important priorities, such as the ability to do AAR for our new fighters (that's going to mean that we need to replace the CC-150, I think...and 5 A330 MRTTs don't come cheap....).

Edited July 21, 2010 by Smallc

Bonam · July 21, 2010

Ok, so what does the Griffon have to do with comparing the helicopters that are being used to Chinooks?

You say it's supposed to land and fuel Chinooks, but the capabilities listed on the official navy website states that it holds a maximum of four smaller helicopters. I've already provided a link in a previous post.

To the best of my knowledge, the government hasn't announced which variant of the F-35 they are buying. Can you provide a link to such an announcement?

The F-35B can take off and land vertically thus eliminating the need for a long runway or catapult system.

Technically, the F-35B has short take off capability (and vertical landing), but it does not have vertical take off. In any case, I don't think there's any reason to believe we are getting F-35Bs. They are very likely to be more expensive and require more maintenance, as well as having reduced range and payload capabilities due to the need to include vertical flight systems.

If we wanted a carrier variant, my opinion is that it would be more prudent to get 2 or 3 larger carriers, and get F-35Cs, the same variant that the US will be using on their Nimitz and Ford class supercarriers.

There's no reason to mess with vertical flight systems unless they are really critical for a given application, and just making a carrier variant is not that application.

justme · July 21, 2010

The idea is for it to be bale to land chinooks and carry them as cargo possibly. Some of the original pictures even show it.

Maybe in your imagination, but not according to the navy.

It will be the A. The B will be far too expensive for the price quoted, and the B is lacking many things that the A has. The only other thing it could be (and maybe should be, since we lack at current the ability to refuel the A in the air) is the C.

So what you're saying is that you have no source for such an announcement?

By the way, it's not likely to be the F-35C because according to reports, only the US will use it. That could change, but that's what I've read.

We aren't going to have carriers....the navy is hurting for people.

Nice dodge.

Only the supply ships and destroyers are 40 years old...

Isn't that what I said? I do believe those are the larger ships.

...and the navy loves the subs. Once they;re finally going, they'll be great. That's why they are one of their top priorities.

Maintaining capability is a top priority, but if given the opportunity, I'm sure they'd go with something better. The list of problems they've had is well known, but hey, if you want to put a positive spin on it....

We already spend over $20B per year on the military. Cut the CBC, fine, but we also have a deficit....or have you forgotten?

Which is about 1.3% of GDP. Man, that's going to break the bank.

A deficit caused by stimulous spending due to the recession, which won't last forever. So, why not use ship building to stimulate the economy?

Edited July 21, 2010 by justme

Smallc · July 21, 2010

Maybe in your imagination, but not according to the navy.

Some concept photos:

http://img406.imageshack.us/i/jssvb0.jpg/

Let me put it this way: If the flight deck is large enough ,they can land, and probably refuel...maybe even some light maintenance. It's that simple.

So what you're saying is that you have no source for such an announcement?

Imagine that I'm a really good guesser. The likely scenario is that we will get the A.

By the way, it's not likely to be the F-35C because according to reports, only the US will use it. That could change, but that's what I've read.

You're right, it isn't likely (the only thing that makes it even the slightest bit likely is that we have the ability to do AAR on them. One thing is for sure: we won't be getting the B.

Nice dodge.

I thought so.

Isn't that what I said? I do believe those are the larger ships.

The destroyers are heavier...the frigates are longer.

Maintaining capability is a top priority, but if given the opportunity, I'm sure they'd go with something better. The list of problems they've had is well known, but hey, if you want to put a positive spin on it....

No opportunity.

Which is about 1.3% of GDP. Man, that's going to break the bank.

It's already the largest federal department. That's about on par with what Germany and Spain spend too.

A deficit caused by stimulous spending due to the recession, which won't last forever. So, why not use ship building to stimulate the economy?

The deficit will remain for several years after stimulus. It's best to not sharpen your pencils then, especially when you have several large needed projects.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an amphibious assault ship...it just ain't happening, I don't think. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised though.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Smallc

wyly · July 21, 2010

Offensive weapons in the armed forces? Oh my god, what a shock!

with that idiotic statement you've just demonstrated you have no clue and disqualify yourself from contributing anything intelligent to the discussion...

Go hug a tree.

Go F*** yourself...

Really? That's why the Canadian navy was involved in the response to the earthquake in Haiti and Katrina in the US.

another idiotic statement it was a six day trip it was to late be of significant help with rescue operations the US arrived in 3 days....Canada's location precludes it ever being a significant player Haiti is about as close as any natural disaster will get to our shores... and a carrier arriving a month after a a natural disaster in some far of location is a useless waste of time ...the idea of carriers for disaster relief is the dumbest idea yet, carriers are are offensive(force projection) it's not a difficult concept to understand, Canada is not in the business of force projection never has been and never will be...and you want to build billion dollar carriers to send a few medical teams to our super power neighbour for some insignificant photo ops after their next hurricane, brilliant :rolleyes:

....

wyly · July 21, 2010

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an amphibious assault ship...it just ain't happening, I don't think. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised though.

I can't see it ever happening when we can't even build an ice breaker (about 1.3 billion) for Arctic patrols which has a higher priority than any global force projection...

justme · July 21, 2010

Technically, the F-35B has short take off capability (and vertical landing), but it does not have vertical take off. In any case, I don't think there's any reason to believe we are getting F-35Bs. They are very likely to be more expensive and require more maintenance, as well as having reduced range and payload capabilities due to the need to include vertical flight systems.

Ok, to be accurate, STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing).

Canada could buy a small number of F-35Bs for carrier use with the bulk being another variant, as recommended in Australia. Typically, only about half a dozen fighter jets are sent for overseas operations anyways.

I can't see any maintenance being worse than that which is required for the Sea Kings.

If we wanted a carrier variant, my opinion is that it would be more prudent to get 2 or 3 larger carriers, and get F-35Cs, the same variant that the US will be using on their Nimitz and Ford class supercarriers.

Assuming the F-35C is available, I agree. The crew requirement of the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, which is almost as big as the Nimitz, isn't too bad either.

Edited July 21, 2010 by justme

Smallc · July 21, 2010

I can't see it ever happening when we can't even build an ice breaker (about 1.3 billion) for Arctic patrols which has a higher priority than any global force projection...

We are building icebreakers..and I'd expect to hear a few more announced over the next 5 years.

justme · July 21, 2010

with that idiotic statement you've just demonstrated you have no clue and disqualify yourself from contributing anything intelligent to the discussion...

Let me know when you figure out the difference between a soldier and a social worker.

DogOnPorch · July 21, 2010

Bonam: If we wanted a carrier variant, my opinion is that it would be more prudent to get 2 or 3 larger carriers, and get F-35Cs, the same variant that the US will be using on their Nimitz and Ford class supercarriers.

The trouble with Canada and aircraft carriers, as BC-2004 often points out, is that we can't get away with just buying/building some carriers in this day 'n age. We need the crusiers, destroyers, supply ships, submarines, docks, warehouses, ports-o-call, cooks, cleaners, plus a thousand other things...and finally hookers that go with having these kinds of ships. It's a huge commitment if we're serious about carrier warfare capabilites rather than just owning several large, tasty cruise missile targets.

DogOnPorch · July 21, 2010

another idiotic statement it was a six day trip it was to late be of significant help with rescue operations the US arrived in 3 days....Canada's location precludes it ever being a significant player Haiti is about as close as any natural disaster will get to our shores... and a carrier arriving a month after a a natural disaster in some far of location is a useless waste of time ...the idea of carriers for disaster relief is the dumbest idea yet, carriers are are offensive(force projection) it's not a difficult concept to understand, Canada is not in the business of force projection never has been and never will be...and you want to build billion dollar carriers to send a few medical teams to our super power neighbour for some insignificant photo ops after their next hurricane, brilliant ....

Carriers make excellent platforms for disaster relief. Tons of room for tons of supplies...add many helicopters....voila.