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

[GostHacked]

india is still a very big country and no the climate range is not more varied, India gets much hotter and in the North the winter temps are very very cold....and at 30,000 ft where the planes operate the temp is the same everywhere, very cold...

Canada is 3x bigger than India, but India's air force is 3x bigger than ours. It's been reported for a decade or so now, that our air force has been seriously lacking. Money should have been spent to maintain the air force, and now we are paying even more to replace this aging neglected fleet.

I like the Russian kits myself, but unfortunately you will never see Russian made aircraft serving in the Canadian air force. And that is all due to politics and having the US right next to us. There are more pros to having the F-35 over any Russian air craft. So the argument of using Russian planes in Canada is utterly useless, it's not going to happen.

It would be more possible to buy from the Swedish, as unlikely as it is. SAAB makes some damn fine aircraft. Even a neutral country like Sweden understands that it needs a standing military/air force to help ensure it's neutrality and maintain its sovereignty. They have had their air force seriously neutered since the USSR collapsed, but yet still has more aircraft than our air force. WTF?!? Hats off to the Swedish for the simple fact that they designed, tested and built their own fighters.

We had the chance to develop our own fighters, but politics killed that project. It would have served us well today if we had kept the program going. The Arrow was a fantastic plane when it was made, to think of the progression we would have made.

India's planes are designed in Russia for Russians which has the same climate as us and is nearly twice as big as Canada to do the same job...so ya the requirements are identical ...

You fail to understand that it simply is not possible to use Russian kit in our military. If we did, you can bet the US would not be as nice as they are to us. If the US wanted to invade us, they could and with relative ease.

and how smart was that? ask Army Guy if he and the boys wouldn't appreciate having a few A10's flying low speed, low level close support vs a F35 at a Km zipping by above the battlefield....go to any US army/marine forum and ask what they would prefer...

If we go out and purchase some brand new A-10s you'd probably still complain that we are paying too much.

there will be an election long before there is contract to sign... once this plane has balloned in price to 150 mill per unit will see if even the conservatives have the balls to sign that contract....

Every shop for a car? Sticker says 20Gs, but by the time you walk out, it might be 25Gs. Fighter air craft are hella expensive, and hella expensive to maintain. Plain and simple.

We live in the second largest country on the planet, with a very low population for it's size. How much money will it take to secure this country and it's sovereignty? Are you willing to put a price cap on that?

[GostHacked]

No plane has enough armour to really protect it in close support situations. If they did they probably couldn't fly. How much you want to bet you could shoot an A-10 out of the sky with small arms fire? You could probably do it to an F-35 but both would take a huge amount of luck to hit the damn things. Then try with an AA missile, you'll take down the A-10 way more often because it will be harder to lock on to the F-35

The A-10 is the most armored air craft in existence anywhere It laughs at small arms fire. It even snickers at large arms fire. You can probably count on your hand how many times an A-10 had been taken down.

Almost 400 bullet holes counted.

Pilots have flown the craft back to base missing wing and tail sections. There is a reason they call it the flying tank.

[Smallc]

The F-35 will not replace the A-10 for 17 years. It's quite possible (probable, even) that there will be another version of the F-35 that will be better suited to the role.

BTW, it seems that LM has a solution for our air to air refuelling problem. They can (apparently) attach the F-35 C refuelling cone to the F-35 A.

That's too bad in a way. I was really hoping that we would get some A-330 MRTTs to replace the CC-150s so we could refuel the CC-177 Globemaster IIIs in the air. Oh well.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

They look at different models, just because we did not let the euros in or look at migs ,does not mean sole soursed. Anyways we should not be buying euro anyways because it will only cause problems down the road.Troops under the libs drove the itulis(SP) jeep around afghansitan, harpers troops are driving armoured vehicles.Matter of fact 2 of them are for sale just up the road do you want one.

Firstly, that's EXACTLY what sole sourcing means. As for buying from the Europeans, the iiltis jeeps were replaced with Mercedes G-wagons. Made in Germany, bitch.

[wyly]

What's assanine is that you keep bringing straw man into the discussion over and over and over again. Repetition is not a strong argument either.

when dealing with the dimwitted a repeat over and over approach is called for...

We are not purchasing these fighters in anticipation of invasion, from overseas or from the USA.

We are not purchasing these fighters solely to protect arctic sovereignty. There are MANY MANY MANY reasons why the DND have chosen these fighters and they are pretty much the same reasons why we have a military in the first place.

oh really... that's exactly what has been repeated here over and over and over, the Russians are flying to close to our airspace we need to protect our sovereignty

I don't think you have a clue what your actual argument is because it seems to be a mess of "We don't have any enemies and thus we don't need a military", along with, "There are cheaper alternatives" and then finally "We're too small to defend against an invasion from the US (or Russia) etc blah blah blah".

All three of these are bad arguments and easily refuted on their own lack of merits but by combining them together you've come up with an incredibly convoluted, nonsensical and contradictory point of view.

it's you living in a cold war fantasy world that's without a clue, no one here including you has yet to name an enemy that is going to attack us or why they would do so...in a world full of countries that are ripe for a takeover by bigger stronger nations invasions are extremely rare, we lived in a much changed world that you seem oblivious too, the need for nations to invade each other is gone, we live in a world of corporate takeovers it's much less costly to buy another countries assests than to invade...

If our lack of enemies concludes a lack of need for military equipment (history has shown us that's a retarded position to take) then why are we talking about the Super Hornet? If our biggest threat is the USA (also retarded to think) then why bother with defensive forces at all? We can't contend with them anyways right?

really, the only country ever threaten to attack us and has done so as well is the USA...that's what history shows, that historical tidbit must have gone unnoticed by retards everywhere

Brilliantly stupid wyly. If we're not going to protect ourselves, then people WILL take advantage of us and there's about 12000 years of history to back that up. If someone were to forcibly claim land or resources from our borders and we were completely unable and unwilling to meet such intrusion with force we'd be at the mercy of whoever would offer us help. The price would be our sovereignty and abilities of self-determination.

brilliantly ignorant moon...we used to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes, today not so much...we are a 2 bit country with zero ability to stop any country with the means to invade us if they should want to, we're talking about 5-6 countries tops, the rest don't have the financial means to launch an invasion of that size...the 5-6 that can we have no hope of stopping with 60 odd F35's we are defenceless without nukes, wasting 9 billion on something that will do us no good is retarded...

Of course, all of this ignores our NORAD and NATO obligations, but that's another matter altogether.

you have lot's of equally deluded dimwitted friends who haven't noticed the Warsaw pact dissappeared sometime ago... Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly

[Smallc]

Firstly, that's EXACTLY what sole sourcing means. As for buying from the Europeans, the iiltis jeeps were replaced with Mercedes G-wagons. Made in Germany, bitch.

And the Leopard 2. I'm sure there is other Euro tech in our forces (and there will probably be much more to come).

[Guest TrueMetis]

The A-10 is the most armored air craft in existence anywhere It laughs at small arms fire. It even snickers at large arms fire. You can probably count on your hand how many times an A-10 had been taken down.

As I said most of the ability to take down a plane is a luck. Considering that the weapons fire did damage the plane I wouldn't call that laughing at small arms fire. Laughing at weapons fire is a leopard tank getting hit directly by RPG's and stronger and not even being damaged, it's not getting hit, getting damaged, but keeping going. That's impressive but not laughing.

Almost 400 bullet holes counted.

Pilots have flown the craft back to base missing wing and tail sections. There is a reason they call it the flying tank.

If a tank took that type of damage from anything short of an anti-tank rocket it would be scrapped. It's impressive for a plane but I wouldn't call it a flying tank.

Though maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

Edited July 30, 2010 by TrueMetis

[nicky10013]

And the Leopard 2. I'm sure there is other Euro tech in our forces (and there will probably be much more to come).

The cormorant search and rescue helicopters that replaced the Labrador helicopters are made in Italy I believe. The Eryx anti-tank missile system and ADATS I believe are French. Whoops, nevermind, ADATS is Swiss. The C9 and C6 are Belgian machine guns.

[wyly]

The planes Russia sells are crap compared to the ones they use, and we are buying the best available product for our needs. I seriously doubt the planes India is getting will be better than the F-35, maybe in a few areas but the F-35 is one of the best planes in the world.

a plane that is loaded with technical problems and not even production and already it's one of the best in the world?...how does that work?

No plane has enough armour to really protect it in close support situations. If they did they probably couldn't fly. How much you want to bet you could shoot an A-10 out of the sky with small arms fire? You could probably do it to an F-35 but both would take a huge amount of luck to hit the damn things. Then try with an AA missile, you'll take down the A-10 way more often because it will be harder to lock on to the F-35

as DOP has pointed out, you're very wrong...it's legendary...

[Smallc]

The cormorant search and rescue helicopters that replaced the Labrador helicopters are made in Italy I believe. The Eryx anti-tank missile system and ADATS I believe are French. Whoops, nevermind, ADATS is Swiss. The C9 and C6 are Belgian machine guns.

I know many of the candidates for the close combat vehicle program are from Europe...as are some of the candidates for the TAPV project, I believe.

[DogOnPorch]

The A-10 keeps up with the fine tradition started with the HS-129 and the Il-2 Sturmovik...indeed flying tanks. The pilots/crew sat/sit in armored 'bathtubs'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUlsNBeiPo

[PIK]

Firstly, that's EXACTLY what sole sourcing means. As for buying from the Europeans, the iiltis jeeps were replaced with Mercedes G-wagons. Made in Germany, bitch.

My mistake, but harper did buy the best not the cheapest, is what I was trying to get at and what is with the bitch, can't you lefties have a normal conversation.

[nicky10013]

My mistake, but harper did buy the best not the cheapest, is what I was trying to get at and what is with the bitch, can't you lefties have a normal conversation.

I'm not saying we should buy the cheapest. I'm saying we need to purchase according to our needs. We haven't had a defence review and the priorities haven't been made public. There was also no competition. For a 16 billion dollar contract, you'd think those two would come mandatory before 16 billion dollars. Furthermore, having a debate on the issue is normal conversation. Swallowing the kool aid isn't. So really, I don't think you have anything to complain about.

How many times in opposition did Harper and co. bitch about sole sourcing with contracts the fraction the size of this one? How ridiculous.

[wyly]

Canada is 3x bigger than India, but India's air force is 3x bigger than ours. It's been reported for a decade or so now, that our air force has been seriously lacking. Money should have been spent to maintain the air force, and now we are paying even more to replace this aging neglected fleet.

India has a much different political situation than we do...Pakistan and China have involved in recent border wars with India it's a much more volatile region is it not?

I like the Russian kits myself, but unfortunately you will never see Russian made aircraft serving in the Canadian air force. And that is all due to politics and having the US right next to us. There are more pros to having the F-35 over any Russian air craft. So the argument of using Russian planes in Canada is utterly useless, it's not going to happen.

I agree and it's unfortunate the Russians seem to put the past behind them better than we do, they're all about making a buck now-a-days, it all business...

It would be more possible to buy from the Swedish, as unlikely as it is. SAAB makes some damn fine aircraft. Even a neutral country like Sweden understands that it needs a standing military/air force to help ensure it's neutrality and maintain its sovereignty. They have had their air force seriously neutered since the USSR collapsed, but yet still has more aircraft than our air force. WTF?!? Hats off to the Swedish for the simple fact that they designed, tested and built their own fighters.

Sweden armed itself in a day when it was required, Germany ignoring neutrality sent a message....but when the iron curtian went down they recognized the need for continued war stance receded...and being a small country has it's advantages economically Swedens infrastructure costs are a fraction of ours so buying planes becomes more feasible

We had the chance to develop our own fighters, but politics killed that project. It would have served us well today if we had kept the program going. The Arrow was a fantastic plane when it was made, to think of the progression we would have made.

I agree in hindsight having our own aerospace program would've had a positive impact on R&D/jobs...Bombardier has done alot to recover that lost ground...

You fail to understand that it simply is not possible to use Russian kit in our military. If we did, you can bet the US would not be as nice as they are to us. If the US wanted to invade us, they could and with relative ease.

which they could do regardless what equipment we bought or from whom...they wouldn't be pleased if we bought russian equipment but I doubt they would invade us for it, more likely renege on some lumber treaty...

If we go out and purchase some brand new A-10s you'd probably still complain that we are paying too much.

no surprisingly I thought we should have bought them years ago, if you have ground troops you should have ground support aircraft...at 11 million a unit they're a steal of a deal...

Every shop for a car? Sticker says 20Gs, but by the time you walk out, it might be 25Gs. Fighter air craft are hella expensive, and hella expensive to maintain. Plain and simple.

ya but that's you're own doing buying the options, I resisted the sales pressure and bought only what I really needed and paid 40K and not 50K...and with these planes unlike a car the price isn't carved in stone, initial prices were reported 65M now american experts are saying 150m maybe more and that's before the options...

We live in the second largest country on the planet, with a very low population for it's size. How much money will it take to secure this country and it's sovereignty? Are you willing to put a price cap on that?

we're in no danger from 98% of the world of the 5 or 6 that could take us over I can't think of any of those that would or would need to, and if they did the only thing that can protect us is nukes, if you want to buy those I'm okay with that... Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly

[PIK]

I'm not saying we should buy the cheapest. I'm saying we need to purchase according to our needs. We haven't had a defence review and the priorities haven't been made public. There was also no competition. For a 16 billion dollar contract, you'd think those two would come mandatory before 16 billion dollars. Furthermore, having a debate on the issue is normal conversation. Swallowing the kool aid isn't. So really, I don't think you have anything to complain about.

How many times in opposition did Harper and co. bitch about sole sourcing with contracts the fraction the size of this one? How ridiculous.

That what it is like being the opposition , just like what the libs are doing now.And when you look at it we are talking less then a billion a year, did you whine when chretien cost us 1/2 billion when he cancelled the helicopters? 500 million for absolutely nothing. Edited July 30, 2010 by PIK

[Guest TrueMetis]

a plane that is loaded with technical problems and not even production and already it's one of the best in the world?...how does that work?

You make it sound like they haven't even built any yet, and considering it's still being tested technical problems are to be expected.

as DOP has pointed out, you're very wrong...it's legendary...

Legends have gotten pretty pathetic.

[nicky10013]

That what it is like being the opposition , just like what the libs are doing now.And when you look at it we are talking less then a billion a year, did you whine when chretien cost us 1/2 billion when he cancelled the helicopters? 500 million for absolutely nothing.

The past is the past. What matters is now. The contract isn't even signed, so not signing it won't cost anything. Catchy, eh? Also, are you actually condoning the difference in behaviour between the opposition and the government? That governments don't have to be accountable at all? That's the vibe I'm picking up.

[wyly]

That what it is like being the opposition , just like what the libs are doing now.And when you look at it we are talking less then a billion a year, did you whine when chretien cost us 1/2 billion when he cancelled the helicopters? 500 million for absolutely nothing.

we needed new helicopters so it wasn't too smart in that sense, was it the best helicopter for our needs I don't recall...

a billion for the g8-20 was pretty stupid as well...

[wyly]

You make it sound like they haven't even built any yet, and considering it's still being tested technical problems are to be expected.

and you're labeling something the best and it hasn't accomplished anything...it's not even in production let alone service...

[wyly]

My mistake, but harper did buy the best not the cheapest, is what I was trying to get at and what is with the bitch, can't you lefties have a normal conversation.

again an unproven aircraft can not be labeled the best at this stage only the most hyped... Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly

[Guest TrueMetis]

and you're labeling something the best and it hasn't accomplished anything...it's not even in production let alone service...

Testing and simulations can show how good an aircraft is. It doesn't have to see combat before you can judge it's capabilities.

[dre]

Testing and simulations can show how good an aircraft is. It doesn't have to see combat before you can judge it's capabilities.

I dont doubt the plane is good, I just doubt we have much in the way of missions that require such a plane.

A Ferrari F40 is a way better car than my Toyota Echo. So I must have been CRAZY not to go deep into debt and buy an F40 right? Well... not really. See the only driving I need to do on a regular basis is to go to the store and back. Theres no need to purchase an F40 for that, and if I did my runs to the store would cost WAY MORE in fuel, depreciation, and maintenance.

The same analogy holds true with the Canadian airforce. 90% of what our planes do is fly routine patrols, and go zooming over the Olympic Venue to give people a sense of security, and be ready to shoot down a rogue civilian airliner.

This decision is going to make those activities cost way more than they need to.

The best piece of hardware available is very often NOT the best piece of hardware to procure for a given organization or project.

[Moonbox]

when dealing with the dimwitted a repeat over and over approach is called for...

Like dogs do right? The solution to getting caught on your leash is to just keep pulling right? It's GOT to work eventually!!!

Maybe if you keep saying the exact same stupid thing over again it will eventually be less stupid right?

oh really... that's exactly what has been repeated here over and over and over, the Russians are flying to close to our airspace we need to protect our sovereignty

No. That's not what's being said. What's been said is that this is ONE of the missions that this aircraft would be expected to undertake for the next 40 years. Think about that number again. 40 years. What will a CF-18 or Super Hornet look like in 20 years even? Garbage is what they'll be.

it's you living in a cold war fantasy world that's without a clue, no one here including you has yet to name an enemy that is going to attack us or why they would do so......

and again...like a dumb animal...we seem the same dumb argument repeated.

One last time, just in case there's even a spark of understanding in there: We aren't buying the F-35 in anticpation of an invasion so your question is totally irrelevant. We're buying it to ensure that Canada has a relevant platform for the next 40 years for its airforce. That's all. If you want to argue that we don't need an airforce, go ahead, but that's similar to saying we don't need a military.

really, the only country ever threaten to attack us and has done so as well is the USA...that's what history shows, that historical tidbit must have gone unnoticed by retards everywhere

Wait...the War of 1812 is proof that we have nothing to fear from potentially hostile foreigners...and that we should instead be worried about the USA??? Bravo my friend. That's truly brain-dead.

brilliantly ignorant moon...we used to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes, today not so much...

Another stunning display of intellectualism. Because we don't sacrifice virgins war is now obsolete as well. Wait...no it isn't. I seem to remember a good number of wars over the last several decades. Some of them we participated in too!

You don't have to land troops on Canadian soil to hurt Canada and when our interests are threatened I'd prefer we were able to act with our allies.

we are a 2 bit country with zero ability to stop any country with the means to invade us if they should want to, we're talking about 5-6 countries tops, the rest don't have the financial means to launch an invasion of that size...the 5-6 that can we have no hope of stopping with 60 odd F35's we are defenceless without nukes, wasting 9 billion on something that will do us no good is retarded...

Yep...there it is again. The dumbass straw-man and the repetition. Why are we talking about invasion again? Why are we talking about nukes? Nukes aren't an option. They never are and anyone who has them knows that. Israel's nukes are really keeping them safe aren't they!?!?

you have lot's of equally deluded dimwitted friends who haven't noticed the Warsaw pact dissappeared sometime ago...

Did Russia disappear as well??

[Moonbox]

I dont doubt the plane is good, I just doubt we have much in the way of missions that require such a plane.

A Ferrari F40 is a way better car than my Toyota Echo. So I must have been CRAZY not to go deep into debt and buy an F40 right? Well... not really. See the only driving I need to do on a regular basis is to go to the store and back. Theres no need to purchase an F40 for that, and if I did my runs to the store would cost WAY MORE in fuel, depreciation, and maintenance.

The same analogy holds true with the Canadian airforce. 90% of what our planes do is fly routine patrols, and go zooming over the Olympic Venue to give people a sense of security, and be ready to shoot down a rogue civilian airliner.

It's a terrible analogy and it's evidence of how weak your argument is. The analogy would maybe hold true if you were talking about whether or not you needed a Concorde or a 747 to cross the ocean, but it has absolutely ZERO relation to military equipment.

Here, let me try an equally stupid analogy:

Why do we need to equip our soldiers with M16's? A Lee-Enfield WW1 rifle will kill someone just as well!

Why do we need modern destroyers and frigates? Our WW2 ships did a fine job patrolling our seas!

[Guest TrueMetis]

I dont doubt the plane is good, I just doubt we have much in the way of missions that require such a plane.

A Ferrari F40 is a way better car than my Toyota Echo. So I must have been CRAZY not to go deep into debt and buy an F40 right? Well... not really. See the only driving I need to do on a regular basis is to go to the store and back. Theres no need to purchase an F40 for that, and if I did my runs to the store would cost WAY MORE in fuel, depreciation, and maintenance.

Actually in this case is a bit more like going from a 1957 Chevy Impala to a 2010 Chevy Camaro.