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

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-set-to-spend-9-billion-on-65-us-fighter-jets/article1595525/

Pretty high for a "good price."

[nicky10013]

Almost 140 million per plane.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not bad, about half the cost of the F-22 and in my opinion an all around better aircraft, but how will they stand up to cold weather?

Almost 140 million per plane.

It says up to 9 billion in the article so it may be less. (should be less those plans aren't worth that much each)

Edited June 8, 2010 by TrueMetis

[punked]

Why does any country need fighter plans anymore? Honestly?

[Smallc]

Good, if the contract is signed now, we'll definitely get delivery when we need it.

[Oleg Bach]

Good, if the contract is signed now, we'll definitely get delivery when we need it.

When are you going to need it? I hope you can keep some conflict going in the meantime or you might look pretty silly starting a new war just to try out the new toys.

[nicky10013]

The F-18s need to be replaced. My problem is that it isn't a tendered bid. On huge contracts such as these, it needs to be fair and open to the public. Whose to say that Harper and co. are really getting best price? Would a company really jack up the price if they had to bid? What company would throw away such a huge potential pile of money coming in by jacking up the price? Like I said, the planes need to be replaced, but the fact that it's been done behind closed doors really smells.

Edited June 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[punked]

The F-18s need to be replaced. My problem is that it isn't a tendered bid. On huge contracts such as these, it needs to be fair and open to the public. Whose to say that Harper and co. are really getting best price? Would a company really jack up the price if they had to bid? What company would throw away such a huge potential pile of money coming in by jacking up the price? Like I said, the planes need to be replaced, but the fact that it's been done behind closed doors really smells.

Why did they NEED to be replaced. We have used them twice, both times they didn't need to be used but were there for what little help we could provide. Honestly this isn't the cold war, there will be no dog fights in the sky and missiles are far more effective.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why did they NEED to be replaced. We have used them twice, both times they didn't need to be used but were there for what little help we could provide. Honestly this isn't the cold war, there will be no dog fights in the sky and missiles are far more effective.

It's not just about air superiority....think stealthy strike missions and close air support. Just sit back and watch how Israel does it! LOL!

[August1991]

Why does any country need fighter plans anymore? Honestly?

We have commitments to NATO and fighters were used in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

But your question deserves an answer from someone who understands this better.

----

OTOH, you have the right idea. The optics here are terrible. If I were Ignatieff, I would get a non-confidence motion before the House as quickly as possible. The Liberals should vote down the budget bill and force an election.

There should be one simple issue: the Conservatives spending priorities. This is fundamentally what we elect politicians to do and on this score, $1 billion plus for a summit, $9 billion for fighters, $2 million for a fake lake. This is not the way most Canadians (in particular, Canadians who voted Tory) want their tax dollars to be spent.

I think the Conservatives are going to take a hammering in the polls on this.

[bush_cheney2004]

PM Harper just needs to sell these the right way...you know...to fight global warming. Also, it helps to have a bitchin' soundtrack for demonstrations to the public. Canada has already been a lower tier partner in the F-35's development. Note the mapleleaf on the aircraft in this video:

[Shady]

This reminds me of when the Liberals used the replacement contract for our helicopters as a political issue. The contract was cancelled. And several Canadian servicemen lost their lives because of old, dilapidated machinery. Let's not put poltiics before people's lives, once again.

[punked]

We have commitments to NATO and fighters were used in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

But your question deserves an answer from someone who understands this better.

----

OTOH, you have the right idea. The optics here are terrible. If I were Ignatieff, I would get a non-confidence motion before the House as quickly as possible. The Liberals should vote down the budget bill and force an election.

There should be one simple issue: the Conservatives spending priorities. This is fundamentally what we elect politicians to do and on this score, $1 billion plus for a summit, $9 billion for fighters, $2 million for a fake lake. This is not the way most Canadians (in particular, Canadians who voted Tory) want their tax dollars to be spent.

I think the Conservatives are going to take a hammering in the polls on this.

Again over the past 10 years haven't we advanced past fighter plans? That is my question really. There is no point investing in something just because it makes us look better. Over the next 20 years we are going to face a spending crisis on things our country holds to high value, Social Security, Medicare, the government needs to be less short sighted. The time to pinch the pennies is right now not in 10 years when we have to cut everything we know and love.

[Argus]

Again over the past 10 years haven't we advanced past fighter plans?

You mean, like, hasn't the world gotten to a point in time were all nations eschew violence, and never threaten one another? Uhm, no. The reason you feel that we don't need weapons is because, at present, we don't need weapons.

And the reason for that is the disparity between the weapons we have, and the weapons "they" have.

Eliminate that disparity, by, for example, ceasing to buy weapons, and the world would become a far more not less dangerous place.

And by "we" I don't specifically mean Canada, but the West.

[punked]

You mean, like, hasn't the world gotten to a point in time were all nations eschew violence, and never threaten one another? Uhm, no. The reason you feel that we don't need weapons is because, at present, we don't need weapons.

And the reason for that is the disparity between the weapons we have, and the weapons "they" have.

Eliminate that disparity, by, for example, ceasing to buy weapons, and the world would become a far more not less dangerous place.

And by "we" I don't specifically mean Canada, but the West.

Nope that is not what I am asking. I am saying we need to look at our military spending, and the future of weapons and invest in that. I don't want Canada to go out and buy catapults just to say they have more then someone else because that is stupid. If warfare is moving beyond manned fighter plans (which it is) Canada should not be putting long term military money into it. We need to spend right or not spend at all. That is my point.

I get that is to deter and while I might not agree with it, I want Canada to have the means to defend itself however there is no point in spending just to say we have something.

[eyeball]

Why does any country need fighter plans anymore? Honestly?

To be a somebody on the world's stage.

What a complete waste of money.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nope that is not what I am asking. I am saying we need to look at our military spending, and the future of weapons and invest in that. I don't want Canada to go out and buy catapults just to say they have more then someone else because that is stupid. If warfare is moving beyond manned fighter plans (which it is) Canada should not be putting long term military money into it. We need to spend right or not spend at all. That is my point.

I get that is to deter and while I might not agree with it, I want Canada to have the means to defend itself however there is no point in spending just to say we have something.

That sound a lot like the thinking that left our military without adequate equipment. Why do we need new equipment? We aren't fighting anyone. Then we enter the war in Afghanistan and find out how much we are missing. Me I'd rather spend the money to keep our military up to date because that will cost far less in the long run.

[August1991]

You mean, like, hasn't the world gotten to a point in time were all nations eschew violence, and never threaten one another? Uhm, no. The reason you feel that we don't need weapons is because, at present, we don't need weapons.

And the reason for that is the disparity between the weapons we have, and the weapons "they" have.

Eliminate that disparity, by, for example, ceasing to buy weapons, and the world would become a far more not less dangerous place.

And by "we" I don't specifically mean Canada, but the West.

The West is one thing, Canada another.

Argus, your argument would have a lot more credibility if the Conservative government had not just spent $1 billion plus on a three day summit. IMV, Stephen Harper's spending judgment is seriously out of whack and so, I have legitimate reason to wonder whether we need $9 billion of fighter jets.

Punked's comment above requires a better answer than simply saying "There are bad people in the world and we have to defend ourselves against them."

[punked]

That sound a lot like the thinking that left our military without adequate equipment. Why do we need new equipment? We aren't fighting anyone. Then we enter the war in Afghanistan and find out how much we are missing. Me I'd rather spend the money to keep our military up to date because that will cost far less in the long run.

Again not what I am saying. I am saying we need to invest in the right equipment. We don't need be buying things for wars that are being fought 30 years in the past. So in 10 years when we get all these plans they will fighting wars of 40 years ago. Seriously the last time we used fighter plans was in Yugoslavia when we sent 18 plans down. While our boys did a great job that was 12 years ago. We haven't used them in 12 years and have been involved in combat. There has to be a reason for this. Oh yeah war is moving in a different direction.

I don't want to starve our military I think if we are going to have one then the fighting men and women should be supplied however if we are going to have one as a small nation we need to really look at where our combat missions are headed. Is this 9 billion we could spend on the future instead of the past.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Again not what I am saying. I am saying we need to invest in the right equipment. We don't need be buying things for wars that are being fought 30 years in the past. So in 10 years when we get all these plans they will fighting wars of 40 years ago. Seriously the last time we used fighter plans was in Yugoslavia when we sent 18 plans down. While our boys did a great job that was 12 years ago. We haven't used them in 12 years and have been involved in combat. There has to be a reason for this. Oh yeah war is moving in a different direction.

I don't want to starve our military I think if we are going to have one then the fighting men and women should be supplied however if we are going to have one as a small nation we need to really look at where our combat missions are headed. Is this 9 billion we could spend on the future instead of the past.

The only person I've heard claiming fighter jets are obsolete is you, and I don't paint you as an expert in military technology.

[Smallc]

The only person I've heard claiming fighter jets are obsolete is you, and I don't paint you as an expert in military technology.

Bingo.

[punked]

The only person I've heard claiming fighter jets are obsolete is you, and I don't paint you as an expert in military technology.

So then tell me why we haven't used them in 12 years and why in the last 30 we have used them twice for what amounts to a years worth of use. Seriously this is a good question. There is a reason the US is cutting back on their fighter purchases and it isn't cause they are dialing back spending. Our military does not need to have toys they need the things we lack and USE in combat. I think the Ships the Cons are building are a great idea because we USE those.

[Shady]

These jets can be used for non-war purposes as well.

It just bugs me that whenever Canada seeks to replace and upgrade old and unusable military hardware, these kinds of politics get played. People continue to put political games ahead of military lives.

It's 1993 being played out all over again. You'd think that we had learned our lesson. Apparently not.

They are known as the "ancient" Sea Kings, the "geriatric" Sea Kings, the "venerable" Sea Kings. They have been called "flying coffins."

...

Then came the 1993 federal election campaign, when Jean Chrétien and his Liberals attacked the Tory plan as wasteful, calling the EH-101 a "Cadillac" helicopter. When the Liberals won and Chrétien became prime minister one of his first acts was to scrap the Tory deal, an act that cost the Canadian government nearly $500 million in cancellation fees.

But Chrétien's government, and that of Prime Minister Paul Martin after him, faced mounting pressure from the military to replace the Sea Kings.

The Sea Kings were supposed to have been retired by 2000, but the air force prolonged their life by spending $80 million to keep them flying until 2005. The Sea Kings require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and they are unavailable for operations 40 per cent of the time.

The government must now spend more money to keep the Sea Kings in the air. The contract for the new Sikorsky helicopters calls for the first air craft to be delivered on Nov. 30, 2008.

CBC

Nothing like flying in helicopters known as flying coffins eh? Especially when you don't need to fly them. And nothing like buying the replacements 15 years after they're needed. Not to mention the lives lost during the crashes of several of these outdated helicopters. 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight? Seriously? And we wanna play the same games as before, this time with jets.

Enough is enough.

[punked]

These jets can be used for non-war purposes as well.

It just bugs me that whenever Canada seeks to replace and upgrade old and unusable military hardware, these kinds of politics get played. People continue to put political games ahead of military lives.

It's 1993 being played out all over again. You'd think that we had learned our lesson. Apparently not.

Nothing like flying in helicopters known as flying coffins eh? Especially when you don't need to fly them. And nothing like buying the replacements 15 years after they're needed. Not to mention the lives lost during the crashes of several of these outdated helicopters. 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight? Seriously? And we wanna play the same games as before, this time with jets.

Enough is enough.

WE SHOULDN'T BE BUYING PLANES BECAUSE OUR HELICOPTERS SUCK! This is the problem right here and why you wont get me on your side next I hear "We need new subs because our helicopters suck, we need new tents because our helicopters suck, we need new guns because our helicopters suck" and soon we will be spending all our tax dollars on buying nothing but new military toys that we don't use.

Now I am ok with our military getting what it NEEDS, but it better damn well need it and there should be an argument for it besides our helicopters suck. Here is an idea instead of buying new plans because our helicopters suck we buy new helicopters. (Yes I know we have already done that). Again why do we need them?

Edited June 8, 2010 by punked

[Guest TrueMetis]

So then tell me why we haven't used them in 12 years and why in the last 30 we have used them twice for what amounts to a years worth of use. Seriously this is a good question. There is a reason the US is cutting back on their fighter purchases and it isn't cause they are dialing back spending. Our military does not need to have toys they need the things we lack and USE in combat. I think the Ships the Cons are building are a great idea because we USE those.

The reason we haven't used them that often (and the last two times have been pretty recent) is that most of the people we fight don't have airforces so should we really stop getting planes on the assumption we won't have to fight anyone that has them?