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

[wyly]

You miss the point. Certainly there are many aircraft designs that are unstable and require fly by wire systems to make them flyable but they are not push button aircraft. Certainly they have autopilots to do routine flying but not maneuvers such as air to air combat. The pilot sends commands to the flight control computers through the stick and rudder pedals and to the engine management system through the throttles. Weapons systems also make extensive use of computers but it is the pilot who decides when and how they will be used. Just because computers can allow us to do many things we couldn't before doesn't make humans obsolete.

no you miss the point Wilber or at least the technological advancements that have been made, those planes can be flown from the ground by humans, humans are still making the decisions...

Dog fighting was declared passé over 40 years ago. Training wasn't emphasized and original F-4's weren't even equipped with a gun. Viet Nam showed the folly of that, Top Gun was a direct result, there was a scramble to equip F-4's with a gun and every fighter since has Incorporated a gun in its design. Air to air combat is rarely a high speed, high altitude video game between computer systems. Every other war since Viet Nam has shown it is largely subsonic, conducted at relatively if not very low altitudes and pilot training and skill is a large factor in the outcome. Just ask the Israelis.

air combat is limited by human frailty, unmanned fighters will end the days of manned dogfights...subsonic combat is a result of humans not being able to withstand the G forces, unmanned planes have no such issues..

Not to knock carrier aviation but the only time a carrier pilot takes off or lands with a tail or crosswind is when he lands at an airport. On a carrier he always has at least a 30 knot headwind right down the runway. Pretty nice.

ya landing on a pitching, rolling, landing strip the size of a postage stamp(relative)at night,...ya real nice, piece of cake...

No doubt we will see more and more use of unmanned aircraft and eventually unmanned fighter aircraft but the demise of the manned fighter is farther away than you think.

ten years away, no more...

[August1991]

Sorry, guys. I think I understand what you're saying.

But you strike me as people arguing that we need stronger horses, more discipline, better co-ordination and more troops - in 1916.

Heck, you seem like the Polish High Comand in 1938 debating what gear to buy. (Sorry, about the choice of nation.)

IMV, you seriously miss the point. I may be no expert in military hardware/gear but it seems obvious to me that "5th Generation Stealth Fighters" may be the coolest thing to have, but they will be useless in our defence in the near future.

We don't face an army with 4th or 5th generation jet fighters. We don't face an army with jet fighters at all. We face an army that places bombs in random places and kills our soldiers.

These random bombs killed about 80 Canadian soldiers, and because of these bombs, many Canadians now question this whole effort. In part because of these bombs, our PM has said that our army will leave Afghanistan (a decision that I approve if only to encourage our allies to contribute).

----

What will we do with these "Fifth Generation Hypersonic Planes" when this enemy places bombs among us, and kills thousands, or more?

What will we do with the 50 5th Generation planes then? Fly them where? Afghanistan? Iran? Syria?

I honestly think that we can spend this $16 billion better, better for our defense.

[wyly]

Fan of the Gadiator are we?

afraid of things that go bump in the night are we?

[DogOnPorch]

afraid of things that go bump in the night are we?

Should I be?

Seems you'd send our soldiers to war with US Civil War Springfield muskets because, afterall, it is a gun and it can kill.

[Bonam]

Sorry, guys. I think I understand what you're saying.

But you strike me as people arguing that we need stronger horses, more discipline, better co-ordination and more troops - in 1916.

Heck, you seem like the Polish High Comand in 1938 debating what gear to buy. (Sorry, about the choice of nation.)

IMV, you seriously miss the point. I may be no expert in military hardware/gear but it seems obvious to me that "5th Generation Stealth Fighters" may be the coolest thing to have, but they will be useless in our defence in the near future.

We don't face an army with 4th or 5th generation jet fighters. We don't face an army with jet fighters at all. We face an army that places bombs in random places and kills our soldiers.

These random bombs killed about 80 Canadian soldiers, and because of these bombs, many Canadians now question this whole effort. In part because of these bombs, our PM has said that our army will leave Afghanistan (a decision that I approve if only to encourage our allies to contribute).

----

What will we do with these "Fifth Generation Hypersonic Planes" when this enemy places bombs among us, and kills thousands, or more?

What will we do with the 50 5th Generation planes then? Fly them where? Afghanistan? Iran? Syria?

I honestly think that we can spend this $16 billion better, better for our defense.

Dude, you are talking as if aircraft have not been used in these recent conflicts. Of course they have. F35s can be used for air to ground attacks. That means blowing up Taliban caves, Iran's nuclear facilities, Syrian tanks in the desert, etc. And with more advanced air defense systems proliferating among these kinds of nations and among terrorist groups, the stealth of the F35 will certainly be of use. And, if we ever do fight an enemy with their own aircraft, our F35s will also be an excellent air-to-air platform. That is why we picked this plane: its versatility.

By the way, F35s are not hypersonic. In fact, there has never been a production hypersonic manned combat aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

By the time you need such things as advanced combat aircraft it'll be far too late to pull out the Mechano set.

[Bonam]

By the time you need such things as advanced combat aircraft it'll be far too late to pull out the Mechano set.

While I agree with what you mean (that we should stay prepared in advance of necessity), this isn't necessarily true. Technological development in times of existential war accelerates rapidly. Think of the rapid progress during WWII in this field. Heck, Germany was coming up with new technologies and managing to produce and deploy them almost right up until the fall of Berlin, as were the allies.

[DogOnPorch]

While I agree with what you mean (that we should stay prepared in advance of necessity), this isn't necessarily true. Technological development in times of existential war accelerates rapidly. Think of the rapid progress during WWII in this field. Heck, Germany was coming up with new technologies and managing to produce and deploy them almost right up until the fall of Berlin, as were the allies.

...and how did that work out for der 3rd Reich?

[August1991]

Dude, you are talking as if aircraft have not been used in these recent conflicts. Of course they have....

Bonam, we don't need "5th Generation Stealth Jets" to attack caves in Afghanistan, or idiots in Somalia.

By the time you need such things as advanced combat aircraft it'll be far too late to pull out the Mechano set.

DogOnPorch, you sound like a French General in 1932 explaining another extension to the Maginot Line.

----

You guys are fighting the last war, and you and the other guys here are seduced by Sony's Big Rack.

You say: "This Fifth Generation Rack is cool, and sexy. No one else has it." You miss the point.

Canadian taxpayers should not buy a defence system because of its coolness.

Edited July 20, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

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

Not in the way you think.

Conservatives and Liberals alike both quite happily demobilized our military after WW2 but whenever these acquisition debates come up the Conservatives always seem to assume this ridiculous position whereby the diminishment, any diminishment, of our military was some sort of left-wing engineered disaster. So...lest we forget once again...the final chapter of an era where Canada went from having the 4th largest armed force on the planet to one of the smallest was written by none other than the Tories. They're also the one's who committed Canada to taking the path towards dependency on the U.S. for our defense.

As for the Avro I think the damage the Tories allowed to happen to the development of our aerospace industry at the time is scandalous. I think we could have easily been contenders in the race to the moon.

[DogOnPorch]

DogOnPorch, you sound like a French General in 1932 explaining another extension to the Maginot Line.

The French high command didn't bother with radios, prefering to use motorcycle couriers and...lol...carrier pigeons...to pass strategic orders.

Since you brought it up...why DIDN'T the Maginot Line work?

(Hint: you mentioned it already)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1LbDTMLDKk

Edited July 20, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[capricorn]

I may be no expert in military hardware/gear but it seems obvious to me that "5th Generation Stealth Fighters" may be the coolest thing to have, but they will be useless in our defence in the near future.

It will be of little comfort for you to know that when we get delivery of the first of the F-35s in 2016 they will probably already be obsolete. That's how fast this type of technology advances. I console myself knowing that even though our F-35s could be outperformed by newer stuff which is sure to appear on the market, potential enemies will still be using pre-F-35 jets or one of the lesser performers.

I honestly think that we can spend this $16 billion better, better for our defense.

Like...what?

[Bonam]

...and how did that work out for der 3rd Reich?

Umm, they got crushed, but it certainly wasn't because they weren't coming up with new technology in time. In fact they were ahead of everyone else when it came to aviation.

[Jack Weber]

The French high command didn't bother with radios, prefering to use motorcycle couriers and...lol...carrier pigeons...to pass strategic orders.

Since you brought it up...why DIDN'T the Maginot Line work?

(Hint: you mentioned it already)

It's along the same lines of why there were so many casualties at Gettysburg...

[Bonam]

Bonam, we don't need "5th Generation Stealth Jets" to attack caves in Afghanistan, or idiots in Somalia.

We need range, stealth, air-to-ground capability, versatility, ease of maintenance, longevity, compatibility with allies. The F-35 best fits the bill.

You might argue the stealth but while idiots in Somalia may not have air defense systems, idiots in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other such places do.

[bush_cheney2004]

....As for the Avro I think the damage the Tories allowed to happen to the development of our aerospace industry at the time is scandalous. I think we could have easily been contenders in the race to the moon.

OK...you were contenders...and lost.

[DogOnPorch]

Umm, they got crushed, but it certainly wasn't because they weren't coming up with new technology in time. In fact they were ahead of everyone else when it came to aviation.

Oh I know and I'm just yankin' yer chain...but I think we can agree that there are three factors to a good airforce...the machine, the pilot and good command control.

It's along the same lines of why there were so many casualties at Gettysburg...

The Maginot Line failed because there WEREN'T enough extensions done in the 1930s...the north of France was completely open to attack (no line)...Guderian and his lads simply went around the flank via the Ardennes.

[Wilber]

no you miss the point Wilber or at least the technological advancements that have been made, those planes can be flown from the ground by humans, humans are still making the decisions...

There will always be some decisions that have to be made by people on the spot. I suppose you also believe that all infantry functions will be carried out by droids and warfare will be nothing but a contest between machines. Dream on.

air combat is limited by human frailty, unmanned fighters will end the days of manned dogfights...subsonic combat is a result of humans not being able to withstand the G forces, unmanned planes have no such issues..

Subsonic combat is a result of where the fighting actually takes place. None of these aircraft are built to pull 9G at Mach 2 there is no reason to do so regardless if an aircraft is manned or not. Air combat is not a world of its own, it happens in conjunction with surface warfare. Air to air combat is a lot more than just who can pull the most G.

ya landing on a pitching, rolling, landing strip the size of a postage stamp(relative)at night,...ya real nice, piece of cake...

I never said that it was easy, just that being able to land on a carrier doesn't make you able to do everything else that is required.

ten years away, no more...

Much more, every one of these experimental aircraft you are speaking about are just hinting at the possibility of air to air combat. Look how long it takes to develop and produce a conventional operational fighter aircraft. More than ten years for sure.

[Jack Weber]

Oh I know and I'm just yankin' yer chain...but I think we can agree that there are three factors to a good airforce...the machine, the pilot and good command control.

The Maginot Line failed because there WEREN'T enough extensions done in the 1930s...the north of France was completely open to attack (no line)...Guderian and his lads simply went around the flank via the Ardennes.

It also had to do with the larger issue of using late 19th century battle tactics in a battle that required far more updated equipment and tactics...

[William Ashley]

McKay is ordering new fighter jets and at a big cost of billions which we don't have. Is he using the VISA CARD again? Should the money go to other sectors instead? Thoughts? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-what-we-need-a-16-billion-fighter-jet/article1641373/

Thoughts:

Canada is in debt half a trillion dollars. The people are being taxed unjustly - Canada deserves to be free, not perpetually bound to harvesting of public fruits by threat of imprisonment or confiscation of wealth.

I firmly beleive missle systems are more cost effective, and a no nonsense nuclear position.

The problem with the air systems - if the Joint Combined NATO forces procurement, is that Canada can not domestically support the project, or upkeep, for the lifespan of the project, independently. It means these systems are "one off". In event of war, supply issues come into effect and Canada will be more or less grounded. Meaning our personnel will be butkiss.

While there is really no way around it. Defence spending is not "pointless", but it ought to be self contained.

A defence strategy needs to be realized, and there really isn't one that is "noticable". It's not as if Canada is shooting down bears. There are other stealth technologies that could be more cost effectively obtained for first strike or retaliation.

They are beyond Canada's means to field - responsibly. The sad fact is that these systems are "super high tech", and Canada as a peace keeping nation against have nots, don't require this level of technology, and lower cost solutions exist, in Brazilian or Venezuelian aircraft for instance. The sad fact is that these systems are satalite US NATO systems for waging war against major states - or covert illegal activities. No good can come from the project, and giving the money directly to the parts suppliers would save Canada the fuel and upkeep costs of the systems.

I don't understand the reasons for purchase, other than commitments. Canada is only a minority partner, so I don't see how cost recovery exists. I don't see a strategy for their use - as to offset any "real threat" to Canadian security, and I'm of the impression that missle systems would be more appropriate for Canadian defence - the US missle sheild for instance with US funding would be a far better endevour. Canada doesn't have air defence that is noticable, and these aircraft, and the number of Canadian aircraft and pilotes is not sufficient seemingly - but I am not well versed in the Canadian defence establishment as it actually exists or its current capabilities. As far as I am aware canada had better air defence 20 years ago than today.

(I felt I should add, there is the whole NORAD thing and the price tag might be reasonable as "a good will token" to NAD - but that is pretty much it, canada is overspending its economic return as far as I can tell for systems that are too costly for its capacities or should be applications - the US may have plans for its 2000 planes as it has bases around the world... Canada doesn't. it only has a few of its bases left. Each US base that closes down a new one opens up somewhere else in the world - each Canadian base that closes down ? who knows. I think a clear strategy outline needs to be delivered to understand the rationality of the purchase.)

Edited July 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[DogOnPorch]

It also had to do with the larger issue of using late 19th century battle tactics in a battle that required far more updated equipment and tactics...

Yup. Guderian had his own halftrack right-up front with all the various radios, code machines etc, in use. As mentioned, the Frenchies were using carrier pigeons.

See pics: http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=9075

http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=9078

[August1991]

The problem with the air systems - if the Joint Combined NATO forces procurement, is that Canada can not domestically support the project, or upkeep, for the lifespan of the project, independently....

I don't understand the reasons for purchase, other than commitments. Canada is only a minority partner, so I don't see how cost recovery exists. I don't see a strategy for their use - as to offset any "real threat" to Canadian security...

William, we can't do this alone. We have to participate with others.

But we can say that buying several hundred of these 5th generation Stealth Fighters is a dumb idea.

We can say that we will spend our $16 B money on something else.

If we did this, after what our soldiers did in Afghanistan, I think our NATO members would take notice.

=====

We in the West face a serious moral and physical threat. Let us confront it now, directly, with appropriate military and philosophical force.

At the moment, this threat is "easy" to deal with. Our soldiers deserve better support, and $16 billion could go very far.

Rather than buy "5th Generation Jets", let's give our soldiers in Afghanistan $16 billion to do the job.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I don't understand the reasons for purchase, other than commitments. Canada is only a minority partner, so I don't see how cost recovery exists. I don't see a strategy for their use - as to offset any "real threat" to Canadian security, and I'm of the impression that missle systems would be more appropriate for Canadian defence - the US missle sheild for instance with US funding would be a far better endevour.....

Exploring that strategy finds that Canada rejected missile defense, largely for political reasons. But allowing that, we still see no domestic infrastructure or capability for the design and manufacture of a either missile systems or tactical aircraft. This is what Avro Arrow nostalgia is all about. If not missiles, or the F-35, or F/A-18, or F-22, or Gripen, or Typhoon, or name any other fighter program in development or production, then what?

This is less about the actual choice being made but rather having to make a choice at all.

[DogOnPorch]

BC-2004: This is less about the actual choice being made but rather having to make a choice at all.

Well said.

No doubt there's also F-101s and F-104s still in the crates up here in the frozen north...I'm sure a few would have the military use them up first.

Eat your carrots, then you get your dessert.

[Jack Weber]

Yup. Guderian had his own halftrack right-up front with all the various radios, code machines etc, in use. As mentioned, the Frenchies were using carrier pigeons.

See pics: http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=9075

http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=9078

That's why I said it was the same reason why there were so many casualties at Gettysburg...The weoponry had outstripped the tactics...

Marching across an open field ,slightly uphill,towards Gatling guns,repeating rifles,and,heavy cannon is NOT recipe for success...