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

[TimG]

If we need 60 or so 5th generation stealth fighter jets, let's buy them and try to get the best deal possible.

The problem is these kinds of decisions are complex juggling acts which involve a lot of intangibles that cannot have a figure attached to them. This makes it impossible to reduce it to a question of price. In fact, our military would be in deep trouble if all procurements were government by the size of the bottom line figure that gets reported to the press.

[August1991]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. There are only 2 fifth generation fighters....and this is the less expensive one.

Smallc, is that what you say to your wife when you want to buy a new car?

The problem is these kinds of decisions are complex juggling acts which involve a lot of intangibles that cannot have a figure attached to them. This makes it impossible to reduce it to a question of price. In fact, our military would be in deep trouble if all procurements were government by the size of the bottom line figure that gets reported to the press.

Look Tim, it seems to me that there are two issues. First, do we need the damn things? And second, if so, let's get them at the best price/conditions possible.

I have argued here that I have legitimate reason to believe that we don't need these planes, and we may need other military hardware more. I don't know. I'd like to hear Harper explain to me why we should spend taxpayer money the way he intends.

I have not yet heard a credible (or indeed any) argument from him. Now, if Harper can'ty explain this purchase to someone like me, he will get absolutely nowhere with three core groups (women, francophones and urban Canadians) that he must at least partly win over if he is to have any hope of forming a majority government.

Edited July 18, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Smallc, is that what you say to your wife when you want to buy a new car?

I don't have a wife...and yes, it is pretty much what I would say.

[DogOnPorch]

I am willing to accept that we must spend $16 billion over X number of years for military hardware. I just want to see someone make the credible case for 5th generation stealth fighters (whatever that means exactly).

In the air to air biz, there is no such thing as the second best aircraft. Given all things being equal, the best stays alive while the rest get shot down...usually in disproportionate numbers. The only factors that influences this are pilot skill and command control. That is to say, in rare cases, a superb pilot can use a second rate aircraft to defeat the better aircraft. Viet-Nam has a few cases of this...where the NVAF pilots managed to get their kills in spite of the horrible odds against them (MiG-17 vs F-4 Phantom II for the most part). Command control allows effective use of resources (like radar plus squadron rotation* during the Battle of Britain). When you have all three (the best aircraft, pilots and command control) like the IAF and the USAF, not many can touch you.

During the 1982 Lebanon War, Syria thought it would play the tough-guy and sent in their airforce to sweep the skies clear of Israeli aircraft in order to help poor Yasser Arafat trapped in Beirut. Over 80 MiGs were shot down with no loses to the Israelis (who had much fewer aircraft involved). Granted, Syrian pilots suck the big Kahoona as do most Arab airforces...but still. The MiG-21 and MiG-23 vs the superior F-15 and Kfir proved to be a disaster.

* squadron rotation made sure at least some pilots were always rested-up.

[Handsome Rob]

Smallc, is that what you say to your wife when you want to buy a new car?

Ah yes, so in 2020, you still want to be driving that good old 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass that will go anywhere, and is easy to fix regardless of the insane amount of fixing and tinkering it requires.

Unfortunately with combat aircraft, as we found out with Sea Kings, it's expensive to keep parts supply's open that long. Not a big collector market when it comes to jet fighters.

And we keep talking about Shiny new 5th generation fighters, but completely ignoring the fact that when the first one touches down on a Canadian runway, there will be 6th generation fighters and these will be called obsolete. But we'll still get a good 35 years out of 'em, if the Liberals don't cancel the project in the next decade, and it will be a good deal.

[Smallc]

And we keep talking about Shiny new 5th generation fighters, but completely ignoring the fact that when the first one touches down on a Canadian runway, there will be 6th generation fighters and these will be called obsolete.

There most certainly will not be....and they will most certainly not be obsolete in 2016. They aren't even available now.

[TimG]

I would argue we need fighters because we need planes that can intercept aircraft over our airspace. The existing fighters are getting old which means they need to replaced. This means the only question is whether there were cheaper fighters that would be good enough. I suspect not.

Frankly, I see this turing into another sea king fiasco because so many people want to be arm chair generals.

[Handsome Rob]

There most certainly will not be....and they will most certainly not be obsolete in 2016. They aren't even available now.

OK sorry you're a bit too literal for me. its computer language, we have a celeron, we can buy an i7, but when you're this far behind its better to just make the big jump of next generation lga1366.

without question the technology will keep surging forward, we need to spend some money to make it last, much like we did all those years ago on the current hornets.

more concise?

[Smallc]

Yes, that makes sense. I'm simply took issue with the idea that there will be 6th generation fighters when none are really even on the horizon yet.

[Handsome Rob]

Yes, that makes sense. I'm simply took issue with the idea that there will be 6th generation fighters when none are really even on the horizon yet.

http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/05/6th-generation-fighter-boeing-fa-xx-on.html

And Boeing displayed images of its F/A-XX “sixth-generation fighter,” which the company’s drawings show in both two-seat and unmanned variants. But those aircraft are still pretty far away. The Navy has yet to land a large, low-observable unmanned aircraft on a carrier.

A larger unmanned helicopter may be significantly closer to reality. The Navy on April 30 issued a request for information about a possible unmanned helicopter ready for operations as early as 2016. It’s referred to as a “persistent ship-based unmanned aircraft system.”

The April 30 request seeks a much larger aircraft than the MQ-8 Fire Scout, an unmanned helo built by Northrop Grumman. The Fire Scout, which just finished a test deployment aboard the frigate McInerney, is less than 24 feet long.

The request calls for an aircraft closer to the size of a traditional, manned helicopter. It should be able to operate from cruisers, destroyers or amphibs. It should have a payload of 1,000 pounds, a combat radius far wider than Fire Scout’s and be able to use satellite communications rather than line-of-site control systems, according to Navy documents.

It doesn't ever stop. Just because we don't see them deployed or publicised, doesn't mean they aren't being developed. There were many killed projects between F-15 & F-22

[Smallc]

Oh, they're on the radar...but like I said, they aren't even on the horizon yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, they're on the radar...but like I said, they aren't even on the horizon yet.

Another reason why F/A-18 doesn't go away anytime soon, as Boeing wants to be the value option vs. Lock-Mart's pricey "exotics". We saw this happen back in the 80's when a high-low mix strategy made the F-16 Fighting Falcon a very cost effective option for many nations. Still in production, over 4400 F-16's have been produced, and ironically, the "lightweight fighter" is now part of LM because of consolidation from General Dynamics.

[Hobble]

I think we should get some of these jets, as well as a few more of those all-year ice breakers...

[eyeball]

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.

Nope, it doesn't look like it to me. I've been patrolling our little stretch of coast the last few days and all I saw were, about 12 bears, a few deer, a couple of surfers, a bunch of whales, a few speed-bumps (kayaks) and a rave. Not a single Islamo-fascist or commie invasion in sight. Not even a snake-head.

I'm a little concerned about whatever strange substances they must be taking at the rave though, they've been hopping up and down and going at it non-stop all weekend.

I recall how our brave air-force would use the nearby sea-lion haul-outs for bombing practice in the old days...

[eyeball]

I think we should get some of these jets, as well as a few more of those all-year ice breakers...

Why not a fleet of ice-breaking air-craft carrying submarines?

Apparently we're getting the planes for free with a billion dollar bonus thrown in. Somehow just putting in the order for them accomplished this economic miracle. The sky is clearly not the limit.

[Bonam]

Why not a fleet of ice-breaking air-craft carrying submarines?

Apparently we're getting the planes for free with a billion dollar bonus thrown in. Somehow just putting in the order for them accomplished this economic miracle. The sky is clearly not the limit.

The sky hasn't been the limit since 1957.

And yes, 2 or 3 nuclear powered ice-breaking supercarriers (not submarines) would actually be exactly what Canada needs to assure sovereignty over the Arctic (and anything else it wanted to assert sovereignty over). Unfortunately, unlike the F-35s, such vessels are not available for sale. We'd have to fund their R&D ourselves, something evidently beyond our nation's abilities.

[Jack Weber]

The sky hasn't been the limit since 1957.

And yes, 2 or 3 nuclear powered ice-breaking supercarriers (not submarines) would actually be exactly what Canada needs to assure sovereignty over the Arctic (and anything else it wanted to assert sovereignty over). Unfortunately, unlike the F-35s, such vessels are not available for sale. We'd have to fund their R&D ourselves, something evidently beyond our nation's abilities.

It certainly is beyond our capabilities...Just look at how successive federal governments starting with the Mulroney era,sold out our shipbuilding capacity...

Edited July 19, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Handsome Rob]

The sky hasn't been the limit since 1957.

And yes, 2 or 3 nuclear powered ice-breaking supercarriers (not submarines) would actually be exactly what Canada needs to assure sovereignty over the Arctic (and anything else it wanted to assert sovereignty over). Unfortunately, unlike the F-35s, such vessels are not available for sale. We'd have to fund their R&D ourselves, something evidently beyond our nation's abilities.

And budget....

[eyeball]

The sky hasn't been the limit since 1957.

It's a little late now to cry over the milk your beloved Tories spilled on what was probably our best opportunity we'll ever have at being big shots on the global stage.

And yes, 2 or 3 nuclear powered ice-breaking supercarriers (not submarines) would actually be exactly what Canada needs to assure sovereignty over the Arctic (and anything else it wanted to assert sovereignty over). Unfortunately, unlike the F-35s, such vessels are not available for sale. We'd have to fund their R&D ourselves, something evidently beyond our nation's abilities.

I fail to see why you'd think that given the cornucopian economic logic you seem to subscribe to. Hey, didn't you agree we'd be better off building a space elevator?

[Bonam]

It's a little late now to cry over the milk your beloved Tories spilled on what was probably our best opportunity we'll ever have at being big shots on the global stage.

The Tories are not "my beloved", nor any other political party.

I fail to see why you'd think that given the cornucopian economic logic you seem to subscribe to.

It is mostly to do with my estimation of the incapability of the Canadian government to undertake a large scale military project which would take probably 20+ years and actually see it all the way through, not with economic impossibility. With parties and politics changing back and forth, someone would kill it at some point before it got done, almost guaranteed.

Economically though, it wouldn't be that hard. The thing with military and R&D spending spent within a country is it all stays right there, in that country. If the Canadian government spends $100 billion on such a program (over 20 years or whatever), and it is all done in Canada, then that $100 billion ends back up in the hands of universities, students, defense companies, their employees, the shops those employees go to, the children of those employees, the schools they go to, the communities they live in, etc. The money doesn't disappear, it keeps circulating in our economy. It is a form of wealth redistribution within a country, which also happens to produce something useful (i.e. new military equipment) in addition to just redistributing wealth.

Hey, didn't you agree we'd be better off building a space elevator?

I said we'd be well served to build one. I don't know about better off. A space elevator is a scientific and potentially commercial asset. Its military use is strictly in terms of placing satellites in orbit. It cannot be used as a weapon (either offensive or defensive) unless we also develop space based weapons (in violation of international treaties). Some idiot (don't think it was you, but forget who it was) then took that thread off on a tangent on his theories about how a space elevator could do everything from solving world energy needs, to world transportation, to providing military dominance (using levitating mines and elevator-launched fighter gliders lol) and other such nonsense.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Bonam

[Moonbox]

It's a little late now to cry over the milk your beloved Tories spilled on what was probably our best opportunity we'll ever have at being big shots on the global stage.

Oh yeah...you're talking about the obsolete-upon completion Avro Arrow right?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Moonbox

[GostHacked]

Oh yeah...you're talking about the obsolete-upon completion Avro Arrow right?

The arrow was canceled because the US was pushing for more missile technology. That was going to render all fighters useless. It never fully came to be, and I think the Arrow was canceled prematurely. There is still a huge need for manned aircraft.

Most stuff we produce/purchase is obsolete on arrival, computer technology is a perfect example of this.

[wyly]

The arrow was canceled because the US was pushing for more missile technology. That was going to render all fighters useless. It never fully came to be, and I think the Arrow was canceled prematurely. There is still a huge need for manned aircraft.

Most stuff we produce/purchase is obsolete on arrival, computer technology is a perfect example of this.

manned fighter technology is doomed, humans restrict what a planes are capable of, there is nothing a human can do that a unmanned plane will be able to do better and for a fraction of the cost, already most of today's planes are computer run the human at the controls is a button pusher...skip the expensive manned toys(F35) for an enemy we don't have at inflated prices and go with less costly and more than adequate options until the unmanned options take over...this proposed purchase will be obsolete in 10 yrs...

[DogOnPorch]

The Arrow was to have one job and one job only. See if you can guess what that job was...

[Bonam]

manned fighter technology is doomed, humans restrict what a planes are capable of, there is nothing a human can do that a unmanned plane will be able to do better and for a fraction of the cost, already most of today's planes are computer run the human at the controls is a button pusher...skip the expensive manned toys(F35) for an enemy we don't have at inflated prices and go with less costly and more than adequate options until the unmanned options take over...this proposed purchase will be obsolete in 10 yrs...

I disagree... we aren't quite there yet. I think there will still be one more generation of primarily manned fighters (sixth gen) before we go to primarily unmanned fighter aircraft. F35s will definitely not be obsolete in 10 years, they will still be being mass produced in 10 years in fact. The US military is acquiring thousands of the things.