Jerry J. Fortin

Visibility....................

The F35 project has cost Canadians much money already. It is going to cost lots more whether the F35 is the aircraft selected or not. This program is not only very expensive is also doomed to experience cost overruns at tax payers expense. Lets deal with the reality here. National defense is something best not left up to foreign power and control, that is a fact. The problem we now face highlights this nicely. Canada does not require, nor do citizens desire that the nation becomes a net arms exporter. On the surface that precludes the existence of a domestic military industrial complex, or so the paradigm would be perceived anyway. The truth is that all of that infrastructure was once in place to built the Arrow in the first place, and its still there. To prove it, we have the current case in point where the proponents of the F35 program elude to the millions of dollars worth of contracts being landed in Canada for the program. This little reality when put into perspective tends to alter the facts on the table. Canada can and does sub-contract highly complex systems for manufacture here. Another F35 proponent argument is that Canada cannot even design such an aircraft to replace the CF18 fleet. The truth is we already did, then we built it 53 years ago, and the Arrow flew faster and higher the the CF18 does today. There is no doubt that the airframe design is 53 years old, and that all manufactured aircraft components today are made with different materials and that renders virtually every previously designed part obsolete. The aircraft does have to be redesigned, but not completely from scratch because a vast majority of the work is upgradeable, and in fact a majority of that work has already been done. To prove that point we have a company that has submitted a proposal to produce the aircraft. This proposal has costing and production formulas built into it. Another proponent argument is that the production would cease once the RCAF order was complete therefore rendering the companies bankrupt. This is simply nonsense, because by that time we would be looking for a new aircraft to replace the ones we just bought. Fighter jets take weeks to be completed not hours or days. In addition we just don't need thousands of them, merely a fraction at best. Since the scale of the production order determines the net cost, Canada is always doomed to pay more when buying outside of the country. With respect to the industry profit and a question of its long term financial viability in domestic terms, provided that the industry was designed as a low volume production from the beginning then there is the potential for viability. Designing the industry to compete in international markets is another story entirely requiring exponentially higher investment, that is not the purpose of the effort but merely a side opportunity. The point is that small volume production is possible in this very unique niche market, a high tech cottage sized industry is the direction we need to travel. Small companies, making small components, in small numbers with small contracts spread out across the nation. We should be thinking smaller and smarter instead of bigger and dumber. So we can design, and build what we need here. The next question is can we do it in the time frame desired, and the company that plans to build the competitor to the F35 claims it can do it within the time constraints provided by the Federal Government. In summary we have the option of choosing a Canadian made alternative at less cost to the tax paying citizen or a foreign product at more cost to the tax paying citizen. There have been posts with respect to weapons systems that indicate we would have to design and build weapons systems that were compatible with NATO forces. Weapons systems are nearly as complex as airframes, another entirely different effort that this nation does NOT need to get into. I would suggest that the Canadian made aircraft be designed to accept NATO spec weapons, end of argument from my side of the fence.

"At a recent meeting at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Gen. Mike Hostage, chief of the U.S. air force’s combat command, provided more details on the plane his organization wants to buy. The sixth generation aircraft would not be a drone and instead would be flown by a pilot. The air force would need the new plane around 2030 and it will be equipped with what he called “game-changing capability,” he noted". http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/12/16/should-canada-skip-the-f-35-and-wait-for-a-sixth-generation-fighter-aircraft/ There are lots of things to read.....!

Very true.....it will be like the Raptor, can't buy them for love or money either. More the reason to build one don't you think?

A sixth gen fighter is supposed to be available by 2026, right as soon as we get our last soon to be purchased F35. Then we can be perfectly lined up to buy obsolete parts at a discount! The F35 is the best choice of the aircraft we are allowed to look at, and it will be out of date the day it is delivered. This program sucks, and I for one don't want to pay for it. Most folks on here just want pretty airplanes to play with. I simply can not believe we are arguing about buying war planes from other countries and complaining how much it costs. Of course its expensive, what should you expect, that it will be cheaper to buy them from far away or build them here? Either we wake up and do it in house; save money, create jobs, build national pride and unity in common effort or we can politically divide ourselves; refuse to hire Canadians, refuse to invest in Canadian industry,and refuse fair value to tax paying citizens. I keep saying this, but where is the fire? Where is the war? Where is the immediate threat to public safety? The CF18 is scheduled for replacement in 2020, but current updates will take the airframe beyond 2030. In less than ten years the Americans went to the moon from its first manned flight. We have 18 years to design and build an airplane here, that is a fact. WE think it is going to cost more than 40 billion dollars for the CF35 program, and we are being told that we can build a Canadian Arrow here for less money. That leaves only one question, why procure defense products outside of the country when we can save money buying from inside the country. If this damned argument is about money, then lets make it about the money. The less money spent, the less debt we have to cover.

I think the natives win this one. They had first right of refusal, done. Screw the feds, roll over the title into a trust fund. Same with every other ruling from now on. The feds need to get this done, settle the damned claims and put it all into a single trust fund. Watch the damned fund like a hawk until all the little details are put to bed, and the fix has been implemented. When the idiots in charge of this mess from both sides realize that screwing around will cost more than getting it done we will see action.

I think he , through his staff , merely accepted an invitation to speak. Perhaps he sought the opportunity, I do not know. At any rate the point I wish to raise is that it is a public event with a partisan leadership candidate speaking at it. It works for both listener and speaker, in other words an opportunity for dialogue. Unless of course fear and bias clouds your judgment the speaking of a politician to ANY group of people should not comes as a surprise.

I think we got the first one in 82, scheduled replacement is 20 so that is 38 years.

Government accountability .....? Really, you think that is forthcoming do you? As to supremacy of parliament I would suggest that you simply lose the delusion. The power lays within the PMO, always has and always will, minority or majority makes no damned difference....wake up.

Still arguing about nickels and dimes!

So why not consider going back to the drawing board. Its not just the equipment purchase that is problematic but the process as well. We need to fix the process before we become involved in it, or we can do nothing but continue to get hosed. There are numerous constraints the federal government has to work around. Between trade agreements and defense obligations there are few ways around a majority of the problems. Open bidding processes, lowest cost contracts to be awarded, etc,etc...only then do we get to the unforeseen additional expenses of modifications and upgrades...impossible to calculate. There is a cost associated with national defense, one not easily calculated. The entire situation leaves much to be desired. Should the RCAF require an aircraft, they could build it themselves, or they could buy it. If they buy it there are hundreds of protocols costing millions of dollars in order to get their hands on it. If they build it........their only consideration is their own budget. The real difference being that the tax payer does not fund the PROFITS of the private contractor. I tend to believe that this process was erroneously designed to put us into a debt we are unable to repay. Remove the profit portion and the tax payer saves money....period. Stop the waste and do it now. There is no question that a great deal of tax dollars will be spent, and the least amount possible to be spent is the desire of the public. What is clear is that a completely different sort of process is required to get this job done with minimum expense to the public. Every opportunity must be taken to ensure maximum value to the tax payer, and that is not possible by knowingly using tax dollars to generate revenues for private industry. It is a paradigm we can simply no longer afford. So what should we do in my opinion is simply fund the RCAF to do what it needs to do. The government believes in the need for new aircraft and the RCAF desires them to fulfill their defensive mandate. The RCAF needs to do the research and development internally because that is the only way to keep jobs and dollars in the country, its that simple. Domestic solution is a political imperative. A political effort to export tax dollars cannot sustain itself long before the media and the public, and that is the exact position the government now finds itself in. This nation should not have an aircraft to replace the CF18 that is not a unique Canadian solution. The design and development of new aircraft takes as long as the previous airframe has air hours available. That is a reality, and we need to consider it carefully. By the time you finish building all the airframes in the program, the next generation is on the assembly line. It is an endless cycle, every nation on earth is stuck in this same paradigm. This nation requires at least 6 squadrons of aircraft, not a mere 65 but a more realistic 130 aircraft . The three current squadrons can not even cover our coastal defense, to double that number is the only acceptable solution, defend the nation. This is the true duty of our government .......defend the nation first. They are not doing it. Now we argue about how much money it will cost to do it, instead of getting it done. That is the way it is, so now we must really think about the money, where it comes from and where it goes. Defending this nation should not represent profit for another nations but instead security and prosperity within our own lands defended by our own people. The opportunity exists for a political effort to resurrect a dream, but do it even better. WE can start to fix the problems of government with this one single effort. End the greed and corruption of politics and the rape and pillage of tax dollars. Defend the nation not the corporation, not at tax payer expense.

Which goes toward my original point of not having to replace the CF18 until 2020, the end of their service life. Besides, we don't really have the ability to defend the nation at the moment anyway. We never have had that ability before, not having the F35 right now doesn't change that and even if we do get the aircraft, 65 of them will not defend the nation either will they??? Too big of a job for too few aircraft at to great a range to function as defense. We need to keep in mind the goals and objectives of national defense for Canada. The F35 program, and its planned spending could change our defensive capability for the better or worse. In my view given that we would still not be able to defend the nation with the planned purchase, we should seek instead the means to accomplish job one for the RCAF which is simply to defend our skies. Many folks will disagree, but I maintain that we need a Canadian solution.

To address your first point, about the full cost of the program in question, the Americans built how many F22's...? Less than two hundred of them. So in fact countries do build one round of aircraft. Actually its companies that do the building, on contract isn't it, not the country. So in fact no different here than there, really. The point is that we do in fact need the infrastructure, and the way to get it is clear. WE could in fact build a new round of improved aircraft every ten years and I suggest that we should do it this way. Small, self-sufficient defense industry. Build what we want and what we need instead of getting what we can afford or find to buy from somebody else. Keep the tax payers dollars in Canada.. With all due respect the concept of breaking even on defense spending amuses me greatly when we don't even try to claw back the costs through income taxes on our own citizens. We can't right now because we keep buying stuff outside the country. We start buying stuff in the country than its production is taxed across the board and this serves to offset the capital investment nicely.

The F35 was the plane of choice, that is no longer the case. Where it goes from here is everyone's favorite exercise right now. Sadly I can convince nobody on here that the kind of money we are talking about, our tax dollars, are being shoveled out the door with this nonsense. Where is the fire. The F18 is scheduled for replacement starting in 2020. WE are not at war, we have no immediate need. So what is the rush? This should be thought about very carefully. The investment could mean far more if it was managed in a manner designed to provide a service. The service is due to the citizens. Its their tax dollars that provide it. The aerospace industry is able to provide numerous spinoffs and benefits. This program should convince citizens that if the public goal is to provide the basis for a military industrial complex, then our citizens should benefit from it. A 45 billion dollar investment into a Canadian designed military industrial complex will provide literally tens of thousands of direct jobs. It could be the backbone of an economic redesign for the nation. There is huge opportunity to be explored by simply rethinking the F35 program.

Look folks the guys that say they can deliver a flying Arrow II by 2017 and be able to replace the CF18 fleet on schedule in 2020. All they want is fifty million to finish the plans, and do that within one year. Is it not worth that? To keep all those tax dollars here in Canada....

I read that it was 40 billion for 65 aircraft and the Arrow proposal was for 120 planes at 9 billion. Those are not my numbers plucked out of thin air. There is a company that claims to be able to make 120 Arrows for 9 billion dollars. It took a lousy 5 years to build the first Arrow from scratch and they fly away the prototype as a production model. We had to literally design and construct every single system in the aircraft. There never was anything like it before, and we did it in five years. How soon do folks think we were going to get F35's, not a day before 2016 and stretching out until 2023....seven more years to get 65 planes.

The ship building contracts are all in Canada. The money stays here, invested in OUR economy and OUR citizens. The aircraft contract was for the profits of other nations and investors, why not do it at home? Save the money.

I think the point was that government in Canada was doing pretty good...as compared to many others. If in fact Americas numbers are higher or lower from mine perspective so be it. As a point in a debate, well then numbers backed up with sources rule, but is it not merely hairsplitting ? Or is American honour at stake?

Would we not have to do something wrong first? Or do you suggest that it is normal at the UN to have a vote on military intervention against a nation that has done nothing wrong?

Oh I understand....its just that we have never had the idea that an election would resolve a few issues either. That is how the public gets an agenda by having fixed election dates. The public agenda up here is manufactured by partisan opinion and manipulated to function as a political tool of office. Power is heavily concentrated in the Prime Ministers office not by constitutional right but instead at the hands of those in power, plain and simple. Fixed election dates will cramp that style, and we already have the means on the books now so I guess I am in favour of it. In Canada we actually need this law. The fact that we create an eternal election mode political model is the price we must pay. The next step should be take a page off the Aussie book and make democratic participation mandatory under federal law. Public participation in the democratic process should not be optional. Use it or lose it applies in this case.

Klein was a fool. However I would like to point out this province went bankrupt because Aberhart was well disliked in Ottawa. Another fool no doubt, yet he got screw by the"King". Ottawa would not cover us like they did for so many others. They abandoned us like all the Bay Street bankers did.

There are damned few folks in Alberta in favour of separation, I should know because I am one of the few.

Thanks but what about Canadian content....where do you stand with that.

The price you pay for democracy. Can we elect the Prime Minister here too if that wouldn't be too much to ask for....

You are right and I agree.