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

[Bonam]

They are supposed to be available commercially between 2015 and 2020. Canada would have benefited from F35 contracts whether we bought the plane or not.

Your right its tough to say how much we would have saved, but my guess is it would have been a pretty penny. The T-50 is being made in India where manufacturing costs are much lower than in the US.

Do you really want to send our pilots up in planes made in India? I don't know about you, but I still would have quite a bit more confidence in a product made in America than in India. Also, I guarantee you the T-50 will be delayed beyond that 2015-2020 timeframe, literally every major new aircraft is. The F-35 was certainly delayed years and years behind its original planned date.

In any case, Id like to think that they considered all the options out there, and did a cost/benefit analysis on all of them to make sure we got the best bang for our buck, but I highly doubt we did. My guess is that if we had published a list of the capabilities we are likely to need that there would have been quite a few planes that could have done the job, and for less money.

The government's stance is that the F-35 was the only plane that met their criteria, and I wouldn't doubt it. T-50 and F-22 aside, the F-35 outclasses anything else that tries to fill a comparable role.

[dre]

Do you really want to send our pilots up in planes made in India? I don't know about you, but I still would have quite a bit more confidence in a product made in America than in India. Also, I guarantee you the T-50 will be delayed beyond that 2015-2020 timeframe, literally every major new aircraft is. The F-35 was certainly delayed years and years behind its original planned date.

The government's stance is that the F-35 was the only plane that met their criteria, and I wouldn't doubt it. T-50 and F-22 aside, the F-35 outclasses anything else that tries to fill a comparable role.

Do you really want to send our pilots up in planes made in India?

Yeah I have no problem with that. Indias manufacturing sector is very modern and high tech and I dont trust it any less than I do that of the US.

The government's stance is that the F-35 was the only plane that met their criteria

How divorced is their criteria from our likely needs is what Id like to know. My guess is that virtually any 4.5 gen fighter could have done the job that the Canadian airforce is likely to be called on to do.

The Candian airforces current responsibilities involve flying missions over Canada and being on a state of alert for another 911 type incident, and missions like flying back and forth over BC during the Olympic games to make people feel safe. I could be wrong but I dont remember us sending fighters for any nato mission in the last 20 years or so.

Edited June 12, 2010 by dre

[Smallc]

My guess is that virtually any 4.5 gen fighter could have done the job that the Canadian airforce is likely to be called on to do.

Well I'm glad you put so much trust in your guess....I'll go with what the airforce wants.

[Bonam]

How divorced is their criteria from our likely needs is what Id like to know. My guess is that virtually any 4.5 gen fighter could have done the job that the Canadian airforce is likely to be called on to do.

Perhaps for right now, but the fighters we start procuring now are very likely what we are going to still be flying in 50+ years time. If you had your way, in 2050 we'd be flying planes that were already going out of date in 2010. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Well I'm glad you put so much trust in your guess....I'll go with what the airforce wants.

THe Airforce saying they want something doesnt mean much... of course theyre going to want high tech goodies. And I pay more taxes than you and should get a bigger say.

[William Ashley]

Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about here. The elevator is worthless as a military installation for one reason above all else, it is a supremely easy target to destroy.

Sure there bud. Just like Moscow or Washington DC is "easy to destroy" What is your point? Anything that doesn't have defensive systems is "easy to destroy". This doesn't mean you can't put defensive systems on or about it.

Mines don't just float in the air, nor would I want the sky filled with levitating mines.

That is basically what a fighter jet is. BTW you can make mines levitate, you can also stealth them. You can also make weapons platforms levitate.

Figther jets are far more dangerous than floating mines.

The kind of elevators currently being studied are far too small to carry the kind of payloads you are talking about.

I've read a lot on the subject and I disagree.

Additionally, aircraft that could be dropped from an elevator and then glide for thousands of km do not presently exist.

Sure they do. This is not to say new ones can't be built.

Thirdly, unless these elevators were built everywhere, people would first have to get themselves to the elevator before they could use it to go somewhere else, reducing its usefulness in this respect.

Stupid argument.

Actually I do get it, which is why I spent about two years working on the concept, am a member of several international committees on it, presented about it at several conferences, and am a strong proponent of it in general. However, I also don't promise false overhyped advantages that will never materialize.

That is sad.

Why not be the first? I'd love to be the first, but Canada is a visionless technological backwater

With Canadians like you, not meant to be an ad hominem, but it is people who say we can't that have things not happen. Not people who say yes, we can. And no that wasn't meant to be probama.

when it comes to aerospace technology. The state of aerospace in Canada is frankly embarassing. We still haven't even developed rockets capable of launching our own spacecraft, when even much smaller and poorer nations have figured it out. As one of the world's richest nations, our only notable achievements in space (things that people from other countries may have heard of) have been the Canadarm and Radarsat, and perhaps the MOST telescope.

You are talking self fullfilling prophesy junk here. Leaders don't do nothing, they lead. You don't have a leader without action.

Not really no. It's getting there, but nanotubes cannot yet be produced with the necessary length or consistency, nor are methods for bonding them into a long structure with acceptable strengh fully developed.

Says who?

If it was cut below the counterweight location, the lower portion would fall back down.

Bad design. if you make a bad design then you have a bad design. If you make a design to make it workable, you get a workable design. People who purport bad designs simply arn't trying to make something succeed.

This could potentially happen due to impact of space debris, though various mitigation measures have been discussed.

OK these are the problems, now why do you only have problems instead of solutions to problems, is it lazyness or stupidity?

The fact that you think it could be tied to the moon shows you have no idea why or how the thing works heh. Hint: the moon isn't geostationary. I'd rant about how you "don't get anything about space" but I'll forgive a lack of knowledge on the part of a layman if they show enthusiasm for a space elevator.

1. It was a joke.

2. It would be possible as the elevator need not be geostationary, especially if it were able to rotate - it would increase costs but it would still be posible - actually the van allen radiation belt could be harnessed to create immense power. Including power usable for military technologies, including not only power for the elevator, but also for defensive systems.

I agree on this point of course. What I was saying (and which you evidently completely missed) was that the media would make a big deal out of it, and this would result in much opposition. Much like with the LHC, people are stupidly scared of it creating black holes, destroying the Earth, etc, when anyone with half a clue knows that won't happen.

"It does create black holes" (just not very big ones - for now)

Agreed. My vision for space exploration would include the use of elevators on the Earth, Moon, and Mars. Because of the way they work, elevators can be used to launch payloads into interplanetary transfer trajectories if the payload detaches above the geosynchronous point on the ribbon. In this way space vehicles without any rockets on them besides small thrusters for minor adjustments could be used for interplanetary travel. I think we'll get to that stage in probably 30-50 years if the current geopolitical and economic climate is extrapolated over the next several decades, which may or may not be a good prediction.

Idiots.

[Smallc]

THe Airforce saying they want something doesnt mean much... of course theyre going to want high tech goodies. And I pay more taxes than you and should get a bigger say.

That's not how it works here.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And I pay more taxes than you and should get a bigger say.

Is that how it works?

[Moonbox]

That is basically what a fighter jet is. BTW you can make mines levitate, you can also stealth them. You can also make weapons platforms levitate.

Why would you ever want a levitating weapons platform?

[ZenOps]

There is also another factor to consider. We cannot use these fighters as we see fit.

About 15 years ago, "unfriendly" militant forces used to buy up US arms (specifically anti-tank launchers) to try and use against US friendly tanks. Surprise - in that they would not acquire or fire upon the tanks because of a special radio signature that all the tanks emitted (to avoid friendly fire as much as avoid fire from stolen weaponry)

Which means - we can *never* use these planes against the US or anyone the US deems friendly enough to share the technology with. Now, history tells us that the US almost completely destroyed York (Now Toronto) way back in the war of 1812.

If the US were to all of a sudden have a president who called the Taliban a friend (unlikely, but stick with me) we would also be required to make them our friends. We do not have a choice, if the US makes Britain an enemy, well you get the picture...

Its something to keep in mind. I don't think there would be a "kill switch" where the planes simply fall out of the sky useless - in case Canada would ever go to war against the US, but you just never know... "All is fair and bombs bursting in air"

Edited June 13, 2010 by ZenOps

[Guest TrueMetis]

That is a concern.

[Bonam]

There is also another factor to consider. We cannot use these fighters as we see fit.

About 15 years ago, "unfriendly" militant forces used to buy up US arms (specifically anti-tank launchers) to try and use against US friendly tanks. Surprise - in that they would not acquire or fire upon the tanks because of a special radio signature that all the tanks emitted (to avoid friendly fire as much as avoid fire from stolen weaponry)

Which means - we can *never* use these planes against the US or anyone the US deems friendly enough to share the technology with. Now, history tells us that the US almost completely destroyed York (Now Toronto) way back in the war of 1812.

If the US were to all of a sudden have a president who called the Taliban a friend (unlikely, but stick with me) we would also be required to make them our friends. We do not have a choice, if the US makes Britain an enemy, well you get the picture...

Its something to keep in mind.

If such measures exist, they would likely be put in place not only by the US on their advanced fighters but also by any other country that would be willing to sell us comparable technology. The only alternative would be to develop our own military aerospace industry capable of independently producing comparable fighters. Given that a military investment in the range of several hundred billion isn't going to happen in Canada, I'm not holding my breath. Anyway 65 F-35s wouldn't make one bit of difference if we had to fight the US, they'd be outnumbered 50:1 by the US's F-35s, not to mention all the other assets America has that Canada does not.

Oh and if the US chose friendship with the Taliban over friendship with Canada, the world would already be far too messed up for any of this to matter.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bonam

[ZenOps]

Don't be so sure the US isn't just as paranoid of Canada...

Obama had to give up his Blackberry for a long time because it had too much Canadian technology. The US was concerned it was a possible security issue (which it is).

Eventually many months later - they made him a special one inhouse built knowing what every transistor was doing.

[dre]

I honestly wouldnt be too worried about that.

For one thing we could engineer around such a block pretty easily, and for another those planes will be used for flying patrol missions, parades, maybe chasing rogue airliners, and flying over events like the olympics. They will never be called on to defend Canadian soil against any attack.

[Bonam]

I honestly wouldnt be too worried about that.

For one thing we could engineer around such a block pretty easily, and for another those planes will be used for flying patrol missions, parades, maybe chasing rogue airliners, and flying over events like the olympics. They will never be called on to defend Canadian soil against any attack.

They could also quite possibly serve in international missions where Canada engages in combat operations, much like they have already served, for example in the Gulf War and in Kosovo.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I could be wrong but I dont remember us sending fighters for any nato mission in the last 20 years or so.

Of course you are wrong....see Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999. Canada completed 10% of the bombing missions. Canadian CF-188s also completed CAP missions in Bosnia (1997 - Operation Mirador, 2000 - Operation Echo) and the Gulf War (1991).

[Bonam]

Of course you are wrong....see Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) in 1999. Canada completed 10% of the bombing missions. Canadian CF-188s also completed CAP missions in Bosnia (1997 - Operation Mirador, 2000 - Operation Echo) and the Gulf War (1991).

Beat you to it~

[Handsome Rob]

Besides the experience thing, I seriously doubt that any Middle Eastern country could field enough of them to make them effective against the U.S. The U.S. would be able to reasonable facsimile of a swarm of locusts with the number of F-35s they will have, let alone their F-22s.

Is it becauseof US arsenals that they don't try?

[Army Guy]

No one is making cuts to the military.

I did not say we where making cuts i said cuts where already made in the past, and in doing so we are now having to pay for them....

[Army Guy]

There is also another factor to consider. We cannot use these fighters as we see fit.

About 15 years ago, "unfriendly" militant forces used to buy up US arms (specifically anti-tank launchers) to try and use against US friendly tanks. Surprise - in that they would not acquire or fire upon the tanks because of a special radio signature that all the tanks emitted (to avoid friendly fire as much as avoid fire from stolen weaponry)

Which means - we can *never* use these planes against the US or anyone the US deems friendly enough to share the technology with. Now, history tells us that the US almost completely destroyed York (Now Toronto) way back in the war of 1812.

If the US were to all of a sudden have a president who called the Taliban a friend (unlikely, but stick with me) we would also be required to make them our friends. We do not have a choice, if the US makes Britain an enemy, well you get the picture...

Its something to keep in mind. I don't think there would be a "kill switch" where the planes simply fall out of the sky useless - in case Canada would ever go to war against the US, but you just never know... "All is fair and bombs bursting in air"

This is a urban myth....NATO forces are faced with this problem all the time, shit we are still trying to solve the friendly fire issue, with bils spent and tech just coming out now....but nothing on the scale you suggested, not even sure if there is a thing invented yet....pull the trigger and a tow missle will gladly head to its target, regardless of who owns it........see gulf war for examples of blue on blue contacts.....

Edited June 14, 2010 by Army Guy

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We have dumped hundreds of millions into this F35 program already. It would seem a shame not to buy any of them, but on the other hand we could get almost two for the price of one with Boeing and the F18 Super Hornet. So instead of getting 65 birds we would get 130 birds. Food for thought.

If it was my choice I would go with the F18's because we need some big numbers of birds just to protect this nation. I would suggest we need to acquire sufficient V22's for any force deployment we desire as well as a few C130 Spectre support aircraft as well. We also need high speed sea transport for our tanks and other mobile artillery to position in theater. We are talking serious dollars here folks.

For the start of any real program I say get the Hornets. Boost our air capability, we have lots to cover. Next would be land forces, and a viable means of deploying them, hence the need for V22's. Meanwhile I would suggest that we need to deal with coastal defenses immediately. For that all we need do is construct what amounts to as a non-drilling platform that can be towed off shore and secured as a early warning intervention system. They would require air to air defense as well sea defenses, but could also serve as civilians structures for research and development as well.

What I am suggesting is something of a longer and more infrastructural plan for our military instead of some knee jerk reaction to a perceived need or threat. We need a comprehensive national defense strategy.

[Topaz]

The only question I have for McKay is....where in the hell are we going to use these after we are done in Afghanistan? Any where the Tories agree with the US, they want us to go? Another harmonizing, and they say Iggy is too American.

[Army Guy]

We have dumped hundreds of millions into this F35 program already. It would seem a shame not to buy any of them, but on the other hand we could get almost two for the price of one with Boeing and the F18 Super Hornet. So instead of getting 65 birds we would get 130 birds. Food for thought.

Our investment into the F-35 project is going to provide much more than the 175 mil we've invested already in regards to contracts and bussiness for Canadian firms est have if at over 6.5 Bil in returns...

With Canada's record in purcurement what do we do with an aircraft in 25 to 30 years from now. The problem with the F-18 E and F models they are near there tech limits now, hence why the US navy has decided to replace them with F-35 C models.

What I am suggesting is something of a longer and more infrastructural plan for our military instead of some knee jerk reaction to a perceived need or threat. We need a comprehensive national defense strategy.

I think the experts in the field already have a defense strategy, one that has been thought out and well planned....all it's waiting for is for governmental approval, or funding....i think what you are seeing is what our government has agreed to purchase or afford....what was recommneded to buy and what was approved to buy are to entirely different totals...

[Moonbox]

We have dumped hundreds of millions into this F35 program already. It would seem a shame not to buy any of them, but on the other hand we could get almost two for the price of one with Boeing and the F18 Super Hornet. So instead of getting 65 birds we would get 130 birds. Food for thought.

The F-18E is an upgrade, but not really a meaningful one for Canada. It will soon be outclassed by numerous other fighters coming to the market and by the time we replace our current fleet of F-18's it will be getting old itself. The F-35 is SIGNIFICANTLY better in almost all aspects. Also, 130 fighters will cost quite a bit more to service and maintain than 65 --- by billions. Food for thought.

Meanwhile I would suggest that we need to deal with coastal defenses immediately. For that all we need do is construct what amounts to as a non-drilling platform that can be towed off shore and secured as a early warning intervention system.

Coastal defenses??? We have about 75 years of history now to show that static defenses are pretty much useless.

What I am suggesting is something of a longer and more infrastructural plan for our military instead of some knee jerk reaction to a perceived need or threat. We need a comprehensive national defense strategy.

Unfortunately our military and its budget are not large enough for marginal and gradual equipment upgrades to our air force.

[ZenOps]

Coastal defenses??? We have about 75 years of history now to show that static defenses are pretty much useless.

Thats assuming that if Canada puts up defenses, the guns will be pointing outward and not inward.

I've said it before, Wiebo Ludwig and Timothy McVeigh are the most damaging types of individuals to the country. Civil disruptances like "Bloody Sunday" and Tiananmen are the ones you "call in the military" for when talking about true defensive defense spending (Saving the cities from LA type riot implosion.)

If Wiebo had the means, I'd be willing to bet he would bomb Hibernia too, and make just as much a mess as the BP spill.

In which case, you can't really use a fighter or bomber plane on your own citizens.

And of course a fighter can't shoot down a Tomahawk cruise, SLBM or ICBM. If a nation is hellbent enough to send an easy target slow bomber to shoot down - they will definitely be sending the rest of it too.

Edited June 17, 2010 by ZenOps