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

[DogOnPorch]

yep....29 years of "peacekeeping" will do that.

29 years...is that all?

[segnosaur]

I gawked at the F-35's price tag too, but what of:

-Larger combat radius.

-Thrust vectoring.

-Stealth platform.

-Ship 1 rolls off the line after a decade of Eurofighter service.

-Excellent maintenance capacity with our neighbor next door.

-Better multi-role capacity, Euro is still struggling to catch up, it's an AA platform(The same reason we got 18's instead of 15 Charlies or 14's)

Minor point... The F-35s that Canada will be buying do not have Thrust Vectoring.

There are 2 purposes of thrust vectoring... allow vertical takeoff/landing (as the F-35B variant and Harrier jets can do, although Canada will be getting the F-35), and for greater maneuverability (As the F-22 can do). The F-35A that Canada will be getting does not do either of these.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with the choice of the F-35 though. (And in fact there are a couple of additional advantages of the F-35 over the Eurofighter.... Higher allowed weight capacity, and the opportunity for "spin off" contracts here in Canada.

[Alta4ever]

Minor point... The F-35s that Canada will be buying do not have Thrust Vectoring.

There are 2 purposes of thrust vectoring... allow vertical takeoff/landing (as the F-35B variant and Harrier jets can do, although Canada will be getting the F-35), and for greater maneuverability (As the F-22 can do). The F-35A that Canada will be getting does not do either of these.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with the choice of the F-35 though. (And in fact there are a couple of additional advantages of the F-35 over the Eurofighter.... Higher allowed weight capacity, and the opportunity for "spin off" contracts here in Canada.

Nothing I have seen says we will be getting the A variant. I imagine the tender will be put out for the Naval variant. It has a larger wing area to allow it to take off at lower speeds and will have a tail hook allowing it to operate from our forward operating bases.

[Moonbox]

Nothing I have seen says we will be getting the A variant. I imagine the tender will be put out for the Naval variant. It has a larger wing area to allow it to take off at lower speeds and will have a tail hook allowing it to operate from our forward operating bases.

I doubt we'll buy 65 naval variants. We'd never have anywhere to use them all. I could possibly see a fraction of them being naval variants but the majority I'm sure will be standard models.

[segnosaur]

Nothing I have seen says we will be getting the A variant. I imagine the tender will be put out for the Naval variant. It has a larger wing area to allow it to take off at lower speeds and will have a tail hook allowing it to operate from our forward operating bases.

The 'A' version is the one that makes the most sense.

The STOVL B variant seems to be based around the needs of the U.S. marine core and British navy. Although there are some advantages to the Carrier 'C' version, I doubt Canadian planes will be be deployed in a position where such features will actually be necessary. (i.e. Canada's planes will likely be stationed well behind any front line positions.)

[Alta4ever]

The 'A' version is the one that makes the most sense.

The STOVL B variant seems to be based around the needs of the U.S. marine core and British navy. Although there are some advantages to the Carrier 'C' version, I doubt Canadian planes will be be deployed in a position where such features will actually be necessary. (i.e. Canada's planes will likely be stationed well behind any front line positions.)

Just the difference in the aircraft would make it advantageous as it is already set up for arresting gear landings, which is a requirement for them to operate from forward bases ion the Canadian north. Larger wing surface means higher lift lower take off speeds, it has the ability of carrying external wing racks.(more ordinance). These were a lot of the same reasons the f-18 won the bid in the last procurement of fighters.

[Smallc]

We're getting the A. LM is pretty convinced of that. They're even adapting the nose cone of the C to fit the A for us.

[Wayne McQ.]

This is a red-herring perpetrated by the Liberals to make gullible people think that something is really wrong with this contract, and the reality is that only one aerospace company makes this 5th generation of aircraft, and the rest bowed out. It is also a reality that we as a nation are part and parcel of NATO, and everyone of our partner's in NATO has already placed orders for this newest tactical fighter jet. I'm also very sure that were the Liberal to gain power the first thing they would do is similar to what bonehead Chretien did with the helicopter contract that was signed by the Conservatives prior to Chretien taking office, he would cancel it and pay $Millions if cancellation penalties and then turn around and down the road order virtually the same helicopters only at a much higher price. When are people going to learn that Liberals count on gullible stupid people to believe whatever it is they say, but smart informed people have come to realize that Liberals by nature or incompetent pathological liars and frauds.

I'm sure that under our agreements with NATO we are required to have up-to-date technology to contribute as our share of the missions and these aircraft since they are the same as those of other NATO countries, parts would be interchangeable amongst the member nations for these aircraft, and thus make maintenance costs considerably less than maintaining supplies on a different aircraft. It makes little sense to send Cessna aircraft into combat with supersonic fighter jets, but then the Liberals have never been known to want to spend money to properly equip our armed forces. I remember when Chretien sent out troops to Afghanistan with virtual targets painted on their body's by sending them into a desert combat zone in olive-drab camoflage gear, and then making a feeble excuse as to why the proper uniforms were not provided prior to being assigned. I also won't forget the bargain basement moth-balled submarines that Chretien purchased and in which a brave Officer and fellow submariners were injured in a fire aboard these useless vessels. Not sure, but I don't remember reading if any of the 6 have ever been certified as seaworthy.

[Smallc]

This is a red-herring perpetrated by the Liberals to make gullible people think that something is really wrong with this contract, and the reality is that only one aerospace company makes this 5th generation of aircraft, and the rest bowed out.

Well, actually, the rest lost out.

It is also a reality that we as a nation are part and parcel of NATO, and everyone of our partner's in NATO has already placed orders for this newest tactical fighter jet.

They most definitely have not. We haven't yet either, and won't for two years.

I'm also very sure that were the Liberal to gain power the first thing they would do is similar to what bonehead Chretien did with the helicopter contract that was signed by the Conservatives prior to Chretien taking office, he would cancel it and pay $Millions if cancellation penalties and then turn around and down the road order virtually the same helicopters only at a much higher price.

We haven't signed any contract yet.

When are people going to learn that Liberals count on gullible stupid people to believe whatever it is they say, but smart informed people have come to realize that Liberals by nature or incompetent pathological liars and frauds.

I'm sure that under our agreements with NATO we are required to have up-to-date technology to contribute as our share of the missions and these aircraft since they are the same as those of other NATO countries, parts would be interchangeable amongst the member nations for these aircraft, and thus make maintenance costs considerably less than maintaining supplies on a different aircraft.

That remains to be seen, but the US is buying enough that you're probably right here.

It makes little sense to send Cessna aircraft into combat with supersonic fighter jets, but then the Liberals have never been known to want to spend money to properly equip our armed forces.

The defence budget was decreased in the 90s (along with pretty much every part of government), but the Liberals raised defence spending in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Paul Martin, and PM, is actually responsible for most of the spending on defence you see today.

I also won't forget the bargain basement moth-balled submarines that Chretien purchased and in which a brave Officer and fellow submariners were injured in a fire aboard these useless vessels.

You should read up about those submarines. The UK decided to go all nuclear, and so had 4 brand new state of the art submarines with some of the most advanced technology in the world. The US and UK didn't want them to fall into the wrong hands, and so gave Canada the best deal they could to persuade us to buy them. The only thing bad about the deal is that they're in worse shape than they were supposed to be.

Not sure, but I don't remember reading if any of the 6 have ever been certified as seaworthy.

There are 4, not 6, and as of current, on HMCS Corner Brook is at sea. HMCS Victoria should join her soon on the other coast.. HMCS Windsor, will hopefully do so a year later. HMCS Chicoutimi is a different matter. Because of the extensive damage to her (and the fact that she, as the oldest of the ships, needs some updating that the others already had) she will not be ready until sometime after 2012, perhaps not until 2015.

Talking points aren't really that useful to a discussion.

[wyly]

We're getting the A. LM is pretty convinced of that. They're even adapting the nose cone of the C to fit the A for us.

doubt we'll get any, there will be an election before contract day

[Smallc]

doubt we'll get any, there will be an election before contract day

I can almost guarantee that if we don't buy the F-35, we'll buy the equally expensive Eurofighter.

[Bonam]

I can almost guarantee that if we don't buy the F-35, we'll buy the equally expensive Eurofighter.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that whatever the outcome of the election, neither the liberals nor the conservatives would be stupid enough to let our airforce just rot away into nothingness.

[Smallc]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that whatever the outcome of the election, neither the liberals nor the conservatives would be stupid enough to let our airforce just rot away into nothingness.

Although the Liberals might let it get close, if they go into cutting mode.

[Moonbox]

doubt we'll get any, there will be an election before contract day

There will be an election yes. It probably won't turn out the way you want it to though.

I can almost guarantee that if we don't buy the F-35, we'll buy the equally expensive Eurofighter.

Which would be a giant mistake.

[PIK]

Smallc, thoses subs were in good shape but the libs let them sit for 3 years in sea water before saying we would take them, they are actually a good boat. And do people expect us to keep the north without proper equiptment, do people relize that china is building a huge ice breaker, because china has said that since we have 1/5 of the pop we should get 1/5 of the arctic resourses.

[wyly]

I can almost guarantee that if we don't buy the F-35, we'll buy the equally expensive Eurofighter.

if the price rises to that projected by military sources of 150M per unit we won't be buying anything...a Super Hornet will do just fine for 55m per...

[Guest TrueMetis]

if the price rises to that projected by military sources of 150M per unit we won't be buying anything...a Super Hornet will do just fine for 55m per...

It's already been pointed out to you that the super hornet won't serve our purposes.

[wyly]

It's already been pointed out to you that the super hornet won't serve our purposes.

our purposes are no different now than in the past; arctic sovereignty, check...shoot down civilian airliners, check...bomb the crap out insurgents, check...no one has presented an argument for a F35 role that can't be done by a Hornet or a Super Hornet, the duties to be met have not changed...

our purposes now are well served by the Hornet, an argument can be made that the Hornet is aging and needs to be replaced but there is no threat that requires us spending 2 or 3 times as much than if a Super Hornet were chosen...spending that kind on cash on a plane that is doomed to obsolescence by unmanned craft in 10-15 yrs is insane...

[DogOnPorch]

our purposes are no different now than in the past; arctic sovereignty, check...shoot down civilian airliners, check...bomb the crap out insurgents, check...no one has presented an argument for a F35 role that can't be done by a Hornet or a Super Hornet, the duties to be met have not changed...

our purposes now are well served by the Hornet, an argument can be made that the Hornet is aging and needs to be replaced but there is no threat that requires us spending 2 or 3 times as much than if a Super Hornet were chosen...spending that kind on cash on a plane that is doomed to obsolescence by unmanned craft in 10-15 yrs is insane...

wyly's choice for Canada's airforce.

[capricorn]

spending that kind on cash on a plane that is doomed to obsolescence by unmanned craft in 10-15 yrs is insane...

Wyly, all aircraft are doomed to obsolescence at some point. By the time we get the new planes (about 2016) the CF-18s, purchased in the late 80s and millions spent on repairs, will be well past their best before date. The new planes will serve us for about 10-15 years by which time I'll be dead and no longer care. I do hope you're still around then to critique the purchase of unmanned aircraft.

[Moonbox]

our purposes are no different now than in the past; arctic sovereignty, check...shoot down civilian airliners, check...bomb the crap out insurgents, check...no one has presented an argument for a F35 role that can't be done by a Hornet or a Super Hornet, the duties to be met have not changed...

Okay sure. The F-18 will do the job for another few years yes. The Super Hornet, however, is going to start being retired in the US armed forces in 2025. Spending money on the Super Hornet IMO is worse than spending no money at all. It's heavily outclassed by already existing Russian and European technology and it will go obsolete so fast that we'd be in the same situation 10 years from now that we're in today. Third world countries are flying better planes than the Super Hornet.

our purposes now are well served by the Hornet, an argument can be made that the Hornet is aging and needs to be replaced but there is no threat that requires us spending 2 or 3 times as much than if a Super Hornet were chosen...spending that kind on cash on a plane that is doomed to obsolescence by unmanned craft in 10-15 yrs is insane...

It's planned to be an effective weapon for the next 40 years. You're so full of ***t it hurts. According to you the aircraft carrier and surface fleets are also obsolete, which coincidentally is also complete and utter nonsense.

If you knew anything about how the equipment operated maybe you'd be able to make a valid point, but you clearly don't. I'm willing to go into great detail with you on how you're wrong if you like, but first tell me how this stuff is going obsolete technically.

[Smallc]

Wyly, all aircraft are doomed to obsolescence at some point. By the time we get the new planes (about 2016) the CF-18s, purchased in the late 80s and millions spent on repairs, will be well past their best before date.

Well, no, but they will be by that date.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Smallc

[DogOnPorch]

Well, no, but they'll be at that date.

Actually, if our aircraft were owned by the USA, they would have given them the 'O' designation many thousands of hours ago.

[Smallc]

Actually, if our aircraft were owned by the USA, they would have given them the 'O' designation many thousands of hours ago.

Well, the USA isn't a typical example when it comes to defence spending. They are still flying planes of similar vintage though.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, the USA isn't a typical example when it comes to defence spending. They are still flying planes of similar vintage though.

Probably built 10 years or so after ours. I believe they use the 10,000 hour mark as the cut-off...then it's assessment time...Scrapyard? National Guard? Museum?

I have a buddy that works here...tells me all about it.