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

[Bonam]

Can't build a space elevator in Canada, it must be at the equator and away from any jet stream.

Not technically true. A space elevator is optimally built on the equator but can theoretically be built at even relatively high latitudes. It will simply start out not vertical relative to the ground and will asymptotically curve towards the same straight line as an elevator on the equator. Anyway, if you wanted to put it on the equator all you'd need is a platform on the scale of an oil rig out in the ocean.

One spy satellite is easily worth 100 reconnasiance aircraft.

Not really true either. Recon aicraft/drones serve a different function than satellites. Satellites can pass over a certain area at most once every several hours due to their orbit speeds and thus can give snapshots of a location at those time intervals. Meanwhile a drone or aircraft flying in the air over an area can provide continual surveillance and real time intelligence for military commanders on the ground to base moment to moment decisions on.

[ZenOps]

Not technically true. A space elevator is optimally built on the equator but can theoretically be built at even relatively high latitudes. It will simply start out not vertical relative to the ground and will asymptotically curve towards the same straight line as an elevator on the equator. Anyway, if you wanted to put it on the equator all you'd need is a platform on the scale of an oil rig out in the ocean.

Not really true either. Recon aicraft/drones serve a different function than satellites. Satellites can pass over a certain area at most once every several hours due to their orbit speeds and thus can give snapshots of a location at those time intervals. Meanwhile a drone or aircraft flying in the air over an area can provide continual surveillance and real time intelligence for military commanders on the ground to base moment to moment decisions on.

Canadas main limitation is the jet stream air current. Its dangerous and very unpredictable to pass an object through an area of 5km of 100 to 400 km/h winds. If you launch something not from the equator, not only do you waste more energy (the whole point of having an elevator is to save energy, not waste it) there is a good chance that it will not be in the spot you want it, simply due to wind (much like a shuttle launch on a windy day, which they will not do) No, a space elevator should and must be near the equator for maximum effectiveness.

A sea elevator is also not a good idea, it costs far too much for ship infrastructure or oilrig type of platform. A real island is the best answer by far.

Geostationary spy satellites can give very accurate results down to .09 meters. Maybe I should have said three satellites. Plane surveillance systems are actually less accurate, as although they are closer, they are moving and have things like engine shudder and turbulence to compensate for.

Geostationary do not move in relation to the earth, much like a fixed in box communication satellite like what your TV dish is pointed at. Very very clear reconnaisance, as long as there is no high cloud cover.

Plane systems usually are not able to detect ICBMs, satellites can (Infrared detection high atmosphere along the horizon)

The era of the fighter and recon plane is over, its in many ways already obsolete. The govt is focusing on proper priorities like farmers who buy 2 tonnes of aluminum nitrate, and moving directly to space dominance (if we want to)

Edited June 10, 2010 by ZenOps

[segnosaur]

Sure for 3rd world milita's capable of absolutely nothing other than killing civilians and not able to do basic maintanence.

Let's compare the AK to say the C-7

At the risk of getting off-topic....

On paper, I agree, the C-7 has many advantages over the AK-47 (e.g. better accuracy, longer range, etc.) The question is, is it more reliable? (And that's something that isn't really covered in your comparison list.)

I recall seeing a documentary where weapons experts compared the AK-47 with the M-16 (of which the C-7 is a variation.) The M-16 beat the AK-47 in pretty much the same categories (accuracy, range, etc.) However, the M-16 were much more high-maintenance and prone to jamming, whereas the AK-47 didn't have the same problems. (Part of that was due to the use of the wrong ammunition type in the early years of M-16 deployment and improper cleaning instructions, but the AK-47, with lower tolerances, is still a bit more reliable.)

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't be buying the F-35. After all, there are different economies that go into buying a fighter plane than buying a rifle.

[M.Dancer]

I recall seeing a documentary where weapons experts compared the AK-47 with the M-16 (of which the C-7 is a variation.) The M-16 beat the AK-47 in pretty much the same categories (accuracy, range, etc.) However, the M-16 were much more high-maintenance and prone to jamming, whereas the AK-47 didn't have the same problems. (Part of that was due to the use of the wrong ammunition type in the early years of M-16 deployment and improper cleaning instructions, but the AK-47, with lower tolerances, is still a bit more reliable.)

That was true of the 1970s edition of the M-16...the C-7 is a few generations ahead of that.

[wyly]

Sure for 3rd world milita's capable of absolutely nothing other than killing civilians and not able to do basic maintanence.

Let's compare the AK to say the C-7

Give you one guess which gun I would rather have.

stats are meaningless, in the real world of sand mud and water there is no time for maintanence when under fire...the proof is in the popularity, visit some miltary forums and see what those whose lives depend on weapons think, the AK47 it seems is even the daily weapon of choice among many americans in Iraq...

It's got nothing to do with being Russian, the current generation of Russian tanks are incredible, I'd still rather have the leopards we currently have.

absolutely it does, no NATO force can even consider purchasing an AK or any Russian equipment, it's political, those who do use it like americans troops in Iraq do so on their own... Edited June 10, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I recall seeing a documentary where weapons experts compared the AK-47 with the M-16 (of which the C-7 is a variation.) The M-16 beat the AK-47 in pretty much the same categories (accuracy, range, etc.) However, the M-16 were much more high-maintenance and prone to jamming, whereas the AK-47 didn't have the same problems. (Part of that was due to the use of the wrong ammunition type in the early years of M-16 deployment and improper cleaning instructions, but the AK-47, with lower tolerances, is still a bit more reliable.)

is this the same documentary where they dropped the the AK in the mud, buried in sand, drove a truck over it and it was uneffected by the abuse...crude and sloppy it does the job, which is how we should be looking at fighter planes, rugged and cheap as long as they do the job they don't need to be pretty...

[M.Dancer]

no NATO force can even consider purchasing an AK, it's political, those who do use it like americans troops in Iraq do so on their own...

It's a rational decision based on logistics. The weapon weighs more, the ammunition weighs more. A soldier can be expected to carry a lot of things....but when you are already carrying 80lbs or more, the decision on whether to carry a weapon that weighs just over 7lbs rather than one that weighs over 9lbs is a no brainer...

Speaking of no brainers...Poland, a NATO member uses a weapon that is quite different from the C-7, The UK uses a weaponta=hat is incredibly different from the C-7...i9n fact, many NATO armies use weapons other than the C-7 or its varients...what they do have in common is the ammunition.

[Army Guy]

Oh, if there are 48 combat operational aircraft, that means that there are 30 - 32 dedicated to training and such.

I think your misunderstanding, those 20 aircraft are not part of any combat sqn, but rather strictly used to train new fighter jocks in cold lake plus outfit the reseach and developement unit, so they are taken out of the equation...

There will, if the current ratio is kept, be 40 combat operational aircraft instead of 48. It would be expected that each commitment will have a proportional decrease in the number of aircraft. At one time we had more aircraft, and we adjusted down to current levels. Each time, we end up with fewer, but more capable aircraft. The simple reality is, all told, with maintenance and support, this contract could run $15B. We can't afford to spend more than that on a single project.

No the simply reality is this, 45 aircraft are not enough to do the mission, regardless if we purchased F-22s. and if the sticker price is a stumbling block and canadians can't choke it down then it's time we ask them WTF they want....And while we all bicker about a few bil here and there, we just spent a bil on the Oylimpic security, very few even batted an eye, now another bil on the G conference, and while yes it has caused a minor bump in the road Canadians will forget all about it soon enough....If your son or daughter was going to suit up to fly one of Canada's first line fighter jets in combat which one do you want them to climb into ? or is the saying true lives do have a price on them....

There is nothing saying that we need to purchase all of our required aircraft in one shot, much like the american system, spreading out the purchase over 10 or 15 years.

[Machjo]

Yes, they're very good at intercepting aircraft off the coast of the arctic.

And what threat is an aircraft off the coast of the arctic. Has Putin indicated any desire to invade Canada recently? Sweden? As far as I can tell, there aren't too many bogeymen up there.

[Army Guy]

Machjo

And let's consider too that technology isn't everything. The US got their butts kicked out of Vietnam, the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and heck, we're struggling in Afghanistan against Ak47s.

Let's not underestimate the will of the people. No technological advancement will ever overcome that.

Again, at the end of the day, balancing the budget ought to take priority.

By the way, I'm sure a WWII rifle can still pose a threat to a US soldier carrying a modern rifle. The same would apply with aircraft.

Is that how you life your life, Tech is not everything, what year is your home, your car, your apliances...do you practice what you preach....

But you expect those who's very lifes depend on this tech to do with less....i would have thought that as a canaidian citizen we would actually sleep better at night knowing that we as a nation have done everything we could to ensure that our military had every edge over the enemy that we could provide...

History is full of examples of Canadians doing just that and soldiers paying for those mistakes with their lifes, Ross rifle comes to mind, Iltis jeep another one....

So while a WWII rifle would pose a threat i do my job that much better knowing that i could hit that same person from 2.5 kms away with a 25 mm HE round turning him into pink mist well before he had a chance to fire a single round at me or any other Canadian soldier....Thats what tech does for you...and while murpys law will always screw with soldiers and those bad guys will mange to kill some of my comrads with a WWII rifle, those with the edge will overcome....

Vietnam and Russia afghan was a war of wills, the US paid a hvy price well over 53,000 young soldiers killed...but how many did the North loss, i'm only guessing but i'd say it was well over 10 times or more that...that is what tech gives you....

[eyeball]

Perhaps DND and our government should publish exactly how much it is going to cost to bring our forces into fighting shape...then Canadians should decide once and for allif they support the troops, or they can live without the services they provide....because right now the optics are saying ...we support you as long it does not cost anything....

1. the government won't let the DND tell us 2. what do you mean let Canadians decide, through a referendum? Fat chance, even you are against that. 3. how do you know we really support you, or your missions without a referendum, you trust the government's propaganda to tell you that?

[Machjo]

Against helicopters, yes. Against jets, no.

And how are these jets to even make it to Canada? We don't really have any enemies in the Arctic, the US is an ally, and the only real enemies we have live an ocean away. Does North Korea have the ability to send fighter aircraft to Canada? What about the Taliban?

Yes, Canada needs fighter aircraft,but it's not a priority and F18s are fine for now. Pay off the debt and then we can buy news jets then. Besides, by the time our debt is paid off, if not before that, these new jets will become obsolete too anyway.So let's keep the F18s for now, pay off the debt, and then buy the new planes of that time.

It's not like Canadian soil is seriously threatened now is it?

[eyeball]

Nothing. I was just trying to put into perspective what it would be like to go into battle with 40-50 year old equipment.

Who exactly are you planning on going into battle against? As much as we need to publicly review who our allies should be we also need to pragmatically assess just who our enemies are and why they hold such animosity towards us.

I'm not sure you really know what you're talking about. Considering that the USA, the most advanced military in the world, is investing something like $350B to purchase thousands of F-35's I think it's safe to say they're confident that present day and forseeable future SAM won't be able to compete with their fighter design.

In the meantime the U.S. is rapidly going broke and remains bogged down in a seemingly endless procession of conflicts against people that are still wielding 40 - 50 year old weapons.

Thus far there's been no indication that modern SAM can render cutting-edge fighters ineffective.

There's no indication that cutting-edge advances in military technology will ever lead to more common sense solutions to whatever is driving the U.S. to continually bang it's head against a wall.

[Army Guy]

Iraqis have managed to take down a number of US aircraft using weapons fare less expensive. The Taliban have shot down a few US helicopters too, and on some occasions US fighter planes were useless owing to the enemy being too close to friendlies, making the dropping of bombs risky, and firing cannons at that speed at a motionless target highly imprecise.

This just does not reflect the reality of war today.

Shit even a sling shot and a marble could take out a fighter jet, but even murphys law can't screw with the force multiplier of fast air brings....

During op Mudusa fast air was called in several times when the enemy was only 150 meters away, dropping multi 500 lbs on thier postion....the safe distance for one 500 lbs was 800 meters...it's the call of the troops on the ground...and how bad they want air support...dropping anything traveling that fast is risky...but far from useless....It is also a possiable to call in air or arty strikes on your own postion , not advisable but when your outnumber and lossing the battle odds are your going to kill more of them than your own...

Like I said, a hand-held anti-aircraft rocket launcher is just as effective.

Are they really ...do you have any proof of that, i mean these aircraft where designed to fight the Cold war, and mother Russia, the king of air defences, from hand held devices to massive ground stations with reachs from 150 meters to well past 60,000 feet....the airforce along with the manufactures have spent trillions of dollars on counter measures....most ground launched sys are simple and can be easily fooled with Chaff or flares...or simply by turning inside the missle track....or climbing past it's maximum alt....and like the WWII rifle occasionally they do get lucky and down an aircraft but how much ordance has those jets already dumped on you.....

[wyly]

So while a WWII rifle would pose a threat i do my job that much better knowing that i could hit that same person from 2.5 kms away with a 25 mm HE round turning him into pink mist well before he had a chance to fire a single round at me or any other Canadian soldier....Thats what tech does for you...and while murpys law will always screw with soldiers and those bad guys will mange to kill some of my comrads with a WWII rifle, those with the edge will overcome....

are the Taliban threatening our arctic airspace? I think a F-18 will do just fine, we have no potential enemies that can threaten a F-18 and those that can are either our allies or so much superior to us that they'll roll over us any time they wish...the best plane on the planet will not save us from the Russians were they so inclined to do us in...

Vietnam and Russia afghan was a war of wills, the US paid a hvy price well over 53,000 young soldiers killed...but how many did the North loss, i'm only guessing but i'd say it was well over 10 times or more that...that is what tech gives you....

the difference was the US Air Force, the N Vietnamese had little air power to speak of and what they had wasn't used in the South...that's not a technological superiority...the US lost in VN because of attrition without air power they would have lost militarily to those cheap sloppy inferior AK47's...

give the Taliban stinger missles and it changes the situation, take away NATO's air cover in Afghanistan and the situation changes dramatically...give the Taliban air power and NATO none and NATO would be raising the white flag...

[Handsome Rob]

Ok what about this

Dassault Rafale

Would that meet our requirements??

or

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

JAS 39 Gripen

or...

Dassault Mirage 2000

The problem stems from the fact that those jets started rolling off the assembly line between 15-30 years ago. When we start retiring our hornets 10-15 years from now, they're going to run into the same problem we have right now.

Need a car, do you buy a 2010 Accord or a 1976 Rambler to save money in the near term? Do you buy milk that's going to expire tomorrow to save a few bucks?

The F-35 is the choice out of necessity. There aren't any viable alternatives. What is the point of saving a billion dollars today, if we're going to spend it in a decade doing the same thing, in addition to the frightening costs in the billions of retraining pilots & crew on new equipment?

[Army Guy]

the F35 won't cope with S-400 (which has already been deployed) either in 10 yrs when the F35 is delivered...expect a S-500 to be in service by then as well...

And the S-400, or the S5000 can't cope with an anti radition missle, designed to home in on radar guided missle installations and take them out no radar no guidance, missle is defeated...Once again the Airforce has spent big dollars ensureing it had counter measures or developed tactics that could defeat any missle.....

Another problem with radar guided systems they have to be on to guide it's missle...or find it's target...turning on thier radar now means airbourne surv and sam hunting aircraft now have a psotive fix on thier postion...anything can take out a fixed postion from arty to fast air, to MLRS the list is endless....so it is not an end all be all system....

[M.Dancer]

the US lost in VN because of attrition without air power they would have lost militarily to those cheap sloppy inferior AK47's...

One third of all US casualties were because of mines and booby traps...out of the 58,193 who died in or as a result of Vietnam, only 18,518 died because of small arms fire...

http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#cause

[Handsome Rob]

And the S-400, or the S5000 can't cope with an anti radition missle, designed to home in on radar guided missle installations and take them out no radar no guidance, missle is defeated...Once again the Airforce has spent big dollars ensureing it had counter measures or developed tactics that could defeat any missle.....

Another problem with radar guided systems they have to be on to guide it's missle...or find it's target...turning on thier radar now means airbourne surv and sam hunting aircraft now have a psotive fix on thier postion...anything can take out a fixed postion from arty to fast air, to MLRS the list is endless....so it is not an end all be all system....

We'll see something like this come back sooner rather than later, and the Sam will have some serious evolving to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-136_Tacit_Rainbow

[segnosaur]

Ok what about this

Dassault Rafale

Would that meet our requirements??

Ummm... minor point...

According to Wikipedia, the 'flyaway cost' of the Rafale is in the $80-$90 million range. The 'flyaway' cost of the F-35 is roughly $90. So, we might not necessarily be saving much by going with that particular plane (although the 'flyaway' cost may not be the exact cost we'd be paying, it is a rough indication.)

As for the other planes you mentioned (Superhornet, Gripen, Mirage), they are definitely cheaper planes, but as others have said, they're also older and we could end up in a situation where we have trouble maintaining them in the long run.

[segnosaur]

And what threat is an aircraft off the coast of the arctic.

Ummm... if nothing else, we should at least be prepared for situations along the lines of 9/11 (i.e. hijackings where a plane is currently in control of terrorists.) Granted, during 9/11 there were no military planes that were able to intercept any of the 4 airliners, but we should at least maintain the capability.

[wyly]

As for the other planes you mentioned (Superhornet, Gripen, Mirage), they are definitely cheaper planes, but as others have said, they're also older and we could end up in a situation where we have trouble maintaining them in the long run.

older in what way? the Hornet will be in production for at least another 10 years and the US will be using them still long after production ends...you don't begin counting from the day the first plane rolled out, but from the date of purchase...and all these purchases come with agreements to supply parts and upgrades after production ends....

[Machjo]

Ummm... if nothing else, we should at least be prepared for situations along the lines of 9/11 (i.e. hijackings where a plane is currently in control of terrorists.) Granted, during 9/11 there were no military planes that were able to intercept any of the 4 airliners, but we should at least maintain the capability.

I fully agree. More security at airports, safer lockable cockpit doors, possibly free martial arts training for pilots and crew who want it, and possibly many other far more efficient options than a fighter aircraft. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[wyly]

Ummm... if nothing else, we should at least be prepared for situations along the lines of 9/11 (i.e. hijackings where a plane is currently in control of terrorists.) Granted, during 9/11 there were no military planes that were able to intercept any of the 4 airliners, but we should at least maintain the capability.

we could strap a AA missile to an old Tudor trainer to take down an airliner we don't need a F-35 for that...

[segnosaur]

are the Taliban threatening our arctic airspace? I think a F-18 will do just fine...

First of all, if we were to rely only in the CF-18, there would come a point where they would become expensive/difficult to maintain. Air frames wear out, parts become difficult to find/replace, etc.

It should also be noted that if handling problems in Canada's own airspace is the only concern, then there are still advantages to having the F-35... it has a much longer range (and it slightly faster). So, if it does become necessary to intercept a plane in the arctic (or out to sea) the F-35 gives us more options.

Lastly, you are assuming that protecting Canadian air space is the only thing we need to be concerned about. Some of us, however, believe that as members of the global community, it is sometimes our duty to intervene militarily to protect the innocent. Having planes with more capability than the CF-18 is part of the cost of being able to render such assistance.