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

[Smallc]

How can you know we don't need them if you're not a military expert? I've heard the opposite from military experts. See, this is one of the examples I can use for you. You don't know if we need them or not. There are people (who should know) that think we need them. You, for some reason, think that you know better....and I'm not sure why.

[August1991]

The troops in Afghanistan have received billions in equipment.

And they deserve several billion more, in particular if it would help them turn the table on the backward Taliban/al Qaeda idiots.

IMV, we could spend these billions differently. Our soldiers deserve better.

----

Stephen Harper wasted over $1 billion of taxpayer money on a dog-and-pony show in Toronto. In doing this, he lost all credibility when his government asks for future government spending cuts.

Now, Harper wants to buy fast jet military planes - presumably as a calculated job creation scheme. (Wait for it.)

I hate this kind of politics.

The only politicians who indulge this are ambitious politicians who have no other way to seek votes. They are ambitious, without any speaking talent.

How can you know we don't need them if you're not a military expert? I've heard the opposite from military experts. See, this is one of the examples I can use for you. You don't know if we need them or not. There are people (who should know) that think we need them. You, for some reason, think that you know better....and I'm not sure why.

Smallc, the military experts in this case are Canadian voters.

And believe me, Canadian voters will soundly express their opinion about these supersonic stealth fighter jets.

They're expensive and we don't need them.

Young Canadian soldiers, women and men, are dying in Afghanistan because of IEDs and we're spending billions on fighter jets? WTF?

----

Look, maybe these fighter jets are the best way to spend our money. But Stephen Harper does not have the communication skills of Obama, Churchill or Trudeau or Levesque. Heck, Bush Jnr could connect with American voters better than Harper can connect with his voters. Harper puts most Canadians to sleep.

Harper has a hard time convincing Canadians of a difficult policy. Harper should pick his policies carefully, and among priorities, I think Harper is wasting time, energy, political capital and his meagre political communication skills on supersonic fighter jets. He has other fish to fry.

Imagine Harper trying to sell a GST or Free Trade to Canadians.

Edited July 17, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

I don't consider the average voter to be a military expert, and neither should you.

[Argus]

New faster stealth fighter jets (when most of our soldiers were killed by IEDs) does not strike me as a good way to spend my tax money.

Using that philosophy we should sell off the navy too, since they're doing nothing to help with IEDs in Afghanistan.

And if you can guarantee that IEDs are going to be the only thing we ever have to worry about, that might even make a modicum of sense. But of course, you don't have the first clue about what sorts of military and strategic challenges Canada might be faced with ten or twenty years down the road.

Canada does not need supersonic stealth fighter jets.

Let me repeat this.

Canada does not need supersonic stealth fighter jets.

Bolding and repeating a statement made in near absolute ignorance does not make it sound any more convincing.

I'm no military expert

Indeed. You strike me as just about the furthest thing imaginable from a military expert. That is to say, you strike me as a Quebecer, one of those folks who've had a life long disgust and contempt for all things military. I doubt you know much, if anything, about military history, nor care. You're above that sort of thing. The military is a creation of primitives without your sense of cosmopolitan liberaleque sophistication.

You know very well there'll never be a threat which needs them, not ever. Because, well, that sort of thing would be so uncivilized, after all.

[Bonam]

It should be noted that this $9 billion contract for Canada to buy these jets also enables Canadian companies to bid on contracts related to them. In fact, it is estimated that Canadian companies will get over $10 billion worth of contracts as a result:

Ms. Testa said that Lockheed would buy about $10 billion of components and parts from Canadian aerospace companies as part of the deal. Canadian officials anticipate that the final amount will be higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html

This purchase will be a net boon to our economy. We are using $9 billion, but our industry gets $10 billion in return, plus we get the fighter jets.

Effectively, Canada is getting 65 free F-35s and a $1 billion bonus on top of it.

[capricorn]

And they deserve several billion more, in particular if it would help them turn the table on the backward Taliban/al Qaeda idiots.

Our combat troops are out of Afghanistan in 2011 and are packing their gear as we speak. So no more money will be assigned for that mission.

Now, Harper wants to buy fast jet military planes - presumably as a calculated job creation scheme. (Wait for it.)

No need to wait. It's already been made clear there will be plenty of spinoff work for Canadians.

Harper has a hard time convincing Canadians of a difficult policy. Harper should pick his policies carefully, and among priorities, I think Harper is wasting time, energy, political capital and his meagre political communication skills on supersonic fighter jets.

What are you talking about? Harper has been preparing the groundwork for this for years. What do you think all his talk of defending our sovereignty, especially in the Arctic, was all about? It's all there in the Conservative policy platform.

[capricorn]

Thank you Bonam. You proved the point I made to August about the positive spinoff to Canadian industry.

[August1991]

I don't consider the average voter to be a military expert, and neither should you.

But Harper is spending the average taxpayer's money, and it will be the average voter who will ultimately decide about these jet fighters.

Can Harper or Mackay explain why we need these expensive jets? I frankly don't think so.

Stephen Harper can only explain things to male Canadians in rural Ontario and rural western Canada. Harper cannot explain things to urban Canadians, women, French Canadians or people in the maritimes.

----

IMV, Harper should be using his meagre communication capital on other messages. For example, I would prefer that he explain why we should cut government spending, various transfers, cultural subsidies etc. Instead, Harper has spent a billion on a three day summit in Ontario and now wants to spend 16 billion on jet planes.

Maybe someone with the communication talents of Obama or Levesque could explain why we need these jets, or this summit.

Stephen Harper does not have those talents.

It should be noted that this $9 billion contract for Canada to buy these jets also enables Canadian companies to bid on contracts related to them. In fact, it is estimated that Canadian companies will get over $10 billion worth of contracts as a result...

Sorry, the best way to help the Canadian economy is to leave the money in my pocket and let me spend it.

Bonam, do you mean that it is good for Canada if the government takes your money and gives it to me? Is that your argument?

Edited July 17, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Using that philosophy we should sell off the navy too, since they're doing nothing to help with IEDs in Afghanistan.

And if you can guarantee that IEDs are going to be the only thing we ever have to worry about, that might even make a modicum of sense. But of course, you don't have the first clue about what sorts of military and strategic challenges Canada might be faced with ten or twenty years down the road.

Argus, I have been posting here long enough to understand that IEDs killed most of our soldiers in Afghanisan, and our military were woefully unprepared for such a battle.

I may not be an expert but I would welcome a public debate about how to spend this money, and how best to protect Canada and participate in our international agreements.

You strike me as just about the furthest thing imaginable from a military expert.

But the thing is, I get a vote.

And if Harper can't explain this to someone like me, he is in very, very serious trouble politically.

I know that some Canadians stopped listening to Harper long ago. That's politics. But Harper should be concerned if people like me stop listening to him. If I were Harper, that should be his greatest fear because then he can't reach them ever.

Edited July 17, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

Sorry, the best way to help the Canadian economy is to leave the money in my pocket and let me spend it.

Bonam, do you mean that it is good for Canada if the government takes your money and gives it to me? Is that your argument?

I agree, in terms of economy, lowering taxes and letting us keep our money would be the best move. But if the Canadian government is going to acquire new fighters, which it must given how old our existing ones are, then it should look for the best deal as well as for the best equipment. And, regardless of the fact that the F-35s are among the best fighters we could get, the terms of the deal are indeed quite favorable for Canada.

From the rest of your post(s) it seems like your main beef is with Harper's communication skills more than anything else. That's fine, you can dislike how he talks, but don't let it color your assessment of military procurement decisions. The F-35s are a good deal and a boon to Canada's aerospace industry.

It's obvious that the security spending on the G8/G20 really stuck up your craw, but this obsession you have with it where you mention it in almost every topic is getting tiresome. Get over it.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Bonam

[TimG]

And if Harper can't explain this to someone like me, he is in very, very serious trouble politically.

We need the new jets because we need the ability to intercept unauthorized aircraft in Canadian airspace. It really does not make a difference if these aircraft will never be used in combat - the key point is the capability must exist. Just like the fact that most police handguns are never used is not an argument to get rid of them.

So the question becomes one of how much would it cost if we did it on the 'cheap'? $8 billion instead of 16? I can't imagine it would be cheaper. So for the extra $8 billion we get aircraft which are state of the art stealth aircraft. We also get to earn some brownie points with the Americans - something we have to do from time to time given they are pulling most of freight for NA defense.

It seems to me that purchase is reasonable but I don't expect people who get all worked up over the summit security cost to understand.

BTW - what was your response when Harper made those arts funding cuts that so annoyed Quebecers? Did you defend him or lambast him for not understanding the importance of the cultural scene in Quebec.

Edited July 17, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

It should be noted that this $9 billion contract for Canada to buy these jets also enables Canadian companies to bid on contracts related to them. In fact, it is estimated that Canadian companies will get over $10 billion worth of contracts as a result:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html

This purchase will be a net boon to our economy. We are using $9 billion, but our industry gets $10 billion in return, plus we get the fighter jets.

Effectively, Canada is getting 65 free F-35s and a $1 billion bonus on top of it.

internal government documents indicate an acquisition cost of $8.99-billion... along with 20 year maintenance service costs of $6.93-billion... with a 2 decade operational cost of $9.6-billion = ~25-billion total cost.

Harper Conservatives speak quite freely about the bid process possibilities of bringing spin-off return... which assumes Canada's bids would be successful, but I've yet to read any Harper Conservatives opening touting the assurance of some $10-billion spin-off (as does your linked article's spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin). If an assured spin-off gain, rather than one tied to an uncertain bid process, you would think Harper Conservatives would be flaunting that figure to no end - yes?

it is quite telling to read why the Harper Conservatives didn't decide the choice of fighter jet based on a competitive tendering process between manufacturers.

as for the need for the new fighter jet... for that particular fighter jet... why, only a refusnik would question such an extended Cold War need! (by the way, how many combat missions did Canada's CF-18 planes fly in Afghanistan? None you say - oh my).

[wyly]

They are phasing out the F-18 and will not be producing it any longer. I would've thought someone so opposed to the new jet would at least do a google search as to what they are actually doing.

The F-16 is a single engine and it's one of the best planes out there, it's the safest multi role fighter in USAF history. Single engine planes are more nimble and agile providing better maneuverability overall.

I would've thought someone who has such masturbatory fantasies over big guns would at least do a google as to what they actually doing..the US navy is still using the Super Hornet which only went into production about 1999, it's a fifth generation fighter like the F35...

Chretien's cancellation of the new choppers caused deaths. How many is irrelevant, even one is too many. We won't let that happen again.

lol...first you say the deaths are significant that is until you find out how few there have been and now it's irrelevant what does Obama use for a predsidential helicopter?..a Sikorski Sea King...

Everything. We need to have similar equipment because we do many joint training exercises/operations together. Having Jets based on 1970's technology in todays world is not only silly but downright dangerous. Our Hornets are very old and there are more that are grounded then are flight ready, that should tell you something.

they've had a 2 billion overhaul and could get another which would suit any need we have...

I know that the average socialist cares nothing for the security of this nation but many are not of your opinion. IF we didn't have the US as a neighbor we would've been conquered long ago. Probably by the USSR.

that's childishly simple view...and the only country that has ever threatened to attack us and has also done so is the USA...evidently you're not a history buff...

So as you can this is a joint venture by many of our NATO allies to streamline our forces. The yare phasing out the F-18 Hornet and many others so it doesn't make much sense for us to keep it if we are to be a partner in the security and foreign relations of the planet in the future.

nato is a dead force...

This new contract is creating many new jobs here in Canada, hundreds to thousands in fact. Ignatieff would like to trash those good paying jobs would he? How does he propose to replace them?

poor return on the dollar investment onlyhundreds to thousands for a 13 billion dollar investment?

The real reason why the left doesn't like this is because the Hornet is made by Boeing which has plants here in Canada and The F-35 which is made by Lockhead/Martin doesn't. The socialists are only looking after their own union members, it's all they have ever cared about.

silly stuff... Edited July 17, 2010 by wyly

[capricorn]

Harper Conservatives speak quite freely about the bid process possibilities of bringing spin-off return... which assumes Canada's bids would be successful, but I've yet to read any Harper Conservatives opening touting the assurance of some $10-billion spin-off (as does your linked article's spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin). If an assured spin-off gain, rather than one tied to an uncertain bid process, you would think Harper Conservatives would be flaunting that figure to no end - yes?

It would be foolish and unwise for the Conservatives to set a fixed spinoff amount. If they did, they would then be required by the Opposition to report to the House on it. It's obvious that Canada's aerospace industry is well positioned to profit from the large number of F-35s sold.

Surging exports coupled with higher public and private sector investments in the industry will drive Canadian aerospace industry to register 3.2% CAGR during 2010-2013.

---

In our analysis, we have acknowledged several critical trends prevailing in the aerospace industry, influencing its current as well as future direction. The report reveals that being the world's third largest, the Canadian aerospace industry has competitive advantage over other regional aerospace industries - for example, production cost in Canada is 7.1% lower than the US. This is prompting various global aerospace majors to increasingly establish their production facilities in the country, thereby presenting better growth outlook for the industry.

http://www.pr-inside.com/aerospace-industry-expects-staggering-growth-r1749982.htm

I think it wiser to let the affected companies speak for themselves, and some have begun to speak up.

Toronto-based Magellan Aerospace said Friday that Canada's participation in the aircraft's development has provided a series of "crucial stepping stones to securing greater roles in the current production and upcoming support phases."

The Toronto-based company designs and makes engines and structural parts.

"This application of new technologies and precision manufacturing processes will transform Magellan Aerospace and other Canadian companies, ensuring they remain confident and competitive leaders in future military and commercial applications," president James Butyniec said.

Analyst Cameron Doerksen of Versant Partners has estimated Magellan's revenue per aircraft could be $1 million.

Montreal-based Héroux-Devtek Inc. is also expected to benefit, by supplying parts for wings and landing-gear doors.

"This is a historic procurement for Canada and excellent news for the Quebec aerospace cluster and the entire Canadian aerospace industry," Héroux-Devtek president Gilles Labbé said.

Benoit Poirier of Desjardins Securities said the order bodes well for Héroux-Devtek. The company should generate $790,000 in revenue from each plane, which would represent about $50 million of revenues over the long term and boost its order backlog, he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/07/16/f-35-spinoffs-canada.html

At those rates, and with a global reputation already established, the $10B mark will probably be reached and maybe even exceeded.

[Smallc]

I would've thought someone who has such masturbatory fantasies over big guns would at least do a google as to what they actually doing..the US navy is still using the Super Hornet which only went into production about 1999, it's a fifth generation fighter like the F35...

No it isn't. It's a generation 4.5 fighter.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would've thought someone who has such masturbatory fantasies over big guns would at least do a google as to what they actually doing..the US navy is still using the Super Hornet which only went into production about 1999, it's a fifth generation fighter like the F35...

Not quite...Super Hornet is a Gen 4.5 platform and it went into low rate production in 1997. I was working on the A-12 Avenger program when it was canceled, forcing a new solution....thus F/A-18 E/F.

lol...first you say the deaths are significant that is until you find out how few there have been and now it's irrelevant what does Obama use for a predsidential helicopter?..a Sikorski Sea King...

...newer Sikorsky VH-3D and other more modern rotary winged aircraft.

that's childishly simple view...and the only country that has ever threatened to attack us and has also done so is the USA...evidently you're not a history buff...

Ever heard of Japan?

nato is a dead force...

The Russians wished this was true.

[capricorn]

The Russians wished this was true.

As a matter of fact, aren't the Ruskies trying to join NATO?

[waldo]

It would be foolish and unwise for the Conservatives to set a fixed spinoff amount.

apparently so... which must be why no Harper Conservatives seem to be touting an assured spin-off amount. Although it obviously hasn't stopped Conservative partisans from speaking to spin-off's in terms of an assured return.

[wyly]

No it isn't. It's a generation 4.5 fighter.

take it up with Boeing they say it's a 5 and good enough that US Navy still wants it....and it's all we need and probably more, certianly less cost...

[Smallc]

take it up with Boeing they say it's a 5 and good enough that US Navy still wants it

No, the US navy doesn't want it anymore. That said, they don't have a choice until the JSF comes online and they can begin receiving them. The F/A-18E/F models are NOT fifth generation fighters. You can look it up if you want.

[with_distinction]

In the current age of globalization, Canada has little worries regarding foreign full on threats. There will be no massive invasion to concern ourselves with. We have created capitalism, and capitalism thrives on trade. It would be economic suicide for a country to pose any threat to us in the sense that we would need to retaliate with $9 billion dollars worth of fight jets.

One may argue that this is an investment in our sovereignty, but ideally, the investment did not need to come at such a high price. The technology we have now is appropriate for our needs. No one is landing on Canadian shores in ultra fast stealth catamarans. The Cf-18s are still appropriate for use in Afghanistan, as far as I know, the Taliban do not have anything better.

This arms race is an unconscious awareness of fear mongering that is currently running rampant in Canada.

It is a waste of finances that could be put to better use, such infrastructure and health care, of perhaps our soon to be ballooning pensioner population.

[Handsome Rob]

In the current age of globalization, Canada has little worries regarding foreign full on threats. There will be no massive invasion to concern ourselves with. We have created capitalism, and capitalism thrives on trade. It would be economic suicide for a country to pose any threat to us in the sense that we would need to retaliate with $9 billion dollars worth of fight jets.

One may argue that this is an investment in our sovereignty, but ideally, the investment did not need to come at such a high price. The technology we have now is appropriate for our needs. No one is landing on Canadian shores in ultra fast stealth catamarans. The Cf-18s are still appropriate for use in Afghanistan, as far as I know, the Taliban do not have anything better.

This arms race is an unconscious awareness of fear mongering that is currently running rampant in Canada.

It is a waste of finances that could be put to better use, such infrastructure and health care, of perhaps our soon to be ballooning pensioner population.

The key point you miss is the fact that these jets will start arriving in a decade, when the hornet program has nothing else to give. Equivalency would be flying korean war F-86 sabres today, these jets will be 50 years old. Going the way of the sea king and 40 hours maintenance for 1 hour in the air, such is not cheap.

There are lots of benefits from the F-35, from tendering development contracts, to getting a return on our to date investments, to having the best maintenance shop in the world a 2 hour flight away.

There is little point in talking about things like the Gripen or other aircraft that have been in service for a decade all ready, because by the time we start retiring hornets, these nations will be in the same place we are today.

[Smallc]

The key point you miss is the fact that these jets will start arriving in a decade, when the hornet program has nothing else to give. Equivalency would be flying korean war F-86 sabres today, these jets will be 50 years old.

They'll be 40 years old, not 50...and they could undergo more upgrades, but the costs to keep them competitive would probably rival a new fighter....so we're getting a new fighter.

[eyeball]

It should be noted that this $9 billion contract for Canada to buy these jets also enables Canadian companies to bid on contracts related to them. In fact, it is estimated that Canadian companies will get over $10 billion worth of contracts as a result:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17fighter.html

This purchase will be a net boon to our economy. We are using $9 billion, but our industry gets $10 billion in return, plus we get the fighter jets.

Effectively, Canada is getting 65 free F-35s and a $1 billion bonus on top of it.

So...the more we spend the more we make...it's brilliant. This sounds even better than cutting taxes to increase revenues. Using this logic...why don't we just take over the whole planet? I mean Christ on a stick, even I could get behind that if it's that freakin' easy.

[Smallc]

So...the more we spend the more we make...it's brilliant. This sounds even better than cutting taxes to increase revenues.

You do realize that such an idea does work up until a point, right?