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

[Army Guy]

stats are meaningless, in the real world of sand mud and water there is no time for maintanence when under fire...the proof is in the popularity, visit some miltary forums and see what those whose lives depend on weapons think, the AK47 it seems is even the daily weapon of choice among many americans in Iraq...

If your maintaining your rifle under fire you've got a problem, I've done 3 tours in Afghan and never had a problem with my rifle that re choking could not fix....the added accuracy and range, can and will save your life...AK -47 lacks this at over 200 to 250 meters....while i could part your balls at 300...and while i will give the AK-47 it's due when it comes to reality, any soldier worth his wieght cleans his rifle every chance he gets, which really negates the reliabilty issue...As for popularity i think is due to it being so cheap not only to manufacture but to purchase on the open market any where in the world....The west controls these type of wpns more....

No my preference would be the C7A2 in 5.56mm for it's accuracy, wieght, small ammo caliber allows carry more ammo, scoped. ...

[M.Dancer]

we could strap a AA missile to an old Tudor trainer to take down an airliner we don't need a F-35 for that...

The tutor would be too slow to catch a 747 or any other modern airliner....keep swinging though...

[segnosaur]

Ummm... if nothing else, we should at least be prepared for situations along the lines of 9/11 (i.e. hijackings where a plane is currently in control of terrorists.)

I fully agree. More security at airports...

Problem is, even if we make our airport security impenetrable, the planes coming in to our airspace are coming from foreign airports, and there is no guarantee that every foreign country with connections to Canada will have the same dedication to security.

Remember, there were two well-noted attempts to destroy aircraft post-9/11, using almost identical tactics. You'd figure after the first attempt people would have clued in and tightened security...

Sometimes, you're only as safe as your weakest link.

...safer lockable cockpit doors, possibly free martial arts training for pilots and crew who want it...

Again, you're only as good as your weakest link. Martial arts are of no use if hijackers are armed with firearms. And if I remember correctly, they had lockable doors on the hijacked planes on 9/11.

and possibly many other far more efficient options than a fighter aircraft. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Hey, if you want to argue that we should tighten security, I'd agree. But to assume that such actions are sufficient is a rather dangerous one.

[M.Dancer]

The nice thing about a fighter is (most anyway) you can put an anti ship missile on it a sink a ship...and the time it takes to order the flight to interceotion is about 100x faster than sending a warship...

[Army Guy]

are the Taliban threatening our arctic airspace? I think a F-18 will do just fine, we have no potential enemies that can threaten a F-18 and those that can are either our allies or so much superior to us that they'll roll over us any time they wish...the best plane on the planet will not save us from the Russians were they so inclined to do us in...

Please tell us what info or experience your basing all this on....When your plumber comes over and tells you your plumbing needs replacing do you say it's fine it will last another 20 years, or do your consider replacing it....in this case DND has done everything it can to preserve these old fighters, and spends much of it's budget to maintain them so we can keep thiose 36 aircraft put aside for defense of our airspace....

As for rolling over us....that is what we have defense agreements for....those agreements also come at a cost that we as a nation provide some basics in our defence, modern jets are one of them ....one of the rules is we all stay inter operable with each other...up until the F-18 upgrades we could not even talk to other NATO pilots...as for saving us , not if we decide to walk away for these defense agreements, and chose to defend ourselfs....cause we are just to cheap to do that....

[ZenOps]

The nice thing about a fighter is (most anyway) you can put an anti ship missile on it a sink a ship...and the time it takes to order the flight to interceotion is about 100x faster than sending a warship...

Assuming that modern warfare will be entirely based on speed that is.

Last I looked - Both World Wars took more than one day...

If its just about winning, and all about speed. Then the Nuke supercedes all. 18 minutes is about the time it takes, and no figther can intercept a SLBM.

Air superiority becomes very expensive to maintain into a second year, assuming attack runs every week.

Air superiority is also extremely fragile. A lucky shellacking from a battleship can take out an entire airstrip or carrier full of fighters in the exact same period of time.

Navies on the other hand, can actually make money in peacetime as you can (depending on will) use them as glorified cargo ships.

Edited June 10, 2010 by ZenOps

[Army Guy]

older in what way? the Hornet will be in production for at least another 10 years and the US will be using them still long after production ends...you don't begin counting from the day the first plane rolled out, but from the date of purchase...and all these purchases come with agreements to supply parts and upgrades after production ends....

Not true, our basic contract was for 20 years of maintaence and parts long ago used up, any upgrades we has a nation have to pay for hence the recent upgrade, as for parts they are there , but there is a waiting line up, and while we do get them not before the big countries get them first....and our Supply lines don't stock much which creates shortages on our end due to lack of funding.

[Army Guy]

we could strap a AA missile to an old Tudor trainer to take down an airliner we don't need a F-35 for that...

Why not strap two grunts armed with rigfles and grenades to a kite, all we would need is a huge wind machine...

[Machjo]

Problem is, even if we make our airport security impenetrable, the planes coming in to our airspace are coming from foreign airports, and there is no guarantee that every foreign country with connections to Canada will have the same dedication to security.

Remember, there were two well-noted attempts to destroy aircraft post-9/11, using almost identical tactics. You'd figure after the first attempt people would have clued in and tightened security...

Sometimes, you're only as safe as your weakest link.

Again, you're only as good as your weakest link. Martial arts are of no use if hijackers are armed with firearms. And if I remember correctly, they had lockable doors on the hijacked planes on 9/11.

Hey, if you want to argue that we should tighten security, I'd agree. But to assume that such actions are sufficient is a rather dangerous one.

That's what international agreements are for. If we have an issue with that, then we reinspect them in Canada.

We can always make cockpit doors solider, and if a terrorist can at most sneak a pocket knife on board, and that's if he's lucky, then having a few staff on board who know martial arts, combined with passeners eager to help to save their own lives, then you've got something going.

It's true that most airplane service staff are women, but there are some men at times too, and combine that with martial arts skills along with passengers willing to help, and it woudl be tough for the passenger.

Another possible solution would be for the government to make martial arts training free of charge for children for instance, so as to increase their interest in learning martial arts at a young age, maybe introducing them in public school. Even just simplified tai chi chuan would suffice for children looking for an easy martial art, as even that would still be better than nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not true, our basic contract was for 20 years of maintaence and parts long ago used up, any upgrades we has a nation have to pay for hence the recent upgrade, as for parts they are there , but there is a waiting line up, and while we do get them not before the big countries get them first....and our Supply lines don't stock much which creates shortages on our end due to lack of funding.

Right...."cannibalization" has been underway for years. And forget about overseas deployments again without solving some serious logistics issues, same as in Aviano (1999), only worse.

[Handsome Rob]

That's what international agreements are for. If we have an issue with that, then we reinspect them in Canada.

We can always make cockpit doors solider, and if a terrorist can at most sneak a pocket knife on board, and that's if he's lucky, then having a few staff on board who know martial arts, combined with passeners eager to help to save their own lives, then you've got something going.

It's true that most airplane service staff are women, but there are some men at times too, and combine that with martial arts skills along with passengers willing to help, and it woudl be tough for the passenger.

Another possible solution would be for the government to make martial arts training free of charge for children for instance, so as to increase their interest in learning martial arts at a young age, maybe introducing them in public school. Even just simplified tai chi chuan would suffice for children looking for an easy martial art, as even that would still be better than nothing.

And another possible solution is to come to the realisation that driving to work in the morning is a far more dangerous ordeal than getting on an airliner anywhere, and we should stop friggin' worrying about it because that is exactly what they want.

[segnosaur]

That's what international agreements are for. If we have an issue with that, then we reinspect them in Canada.

What, you mean reinspect the passengers if we don't trust foreign security?

That won't help if the plane is hijacked en route to Canada, before it ever lands at a Canadian airport.

We can always make cockpit doors solider,

Which doesn't help if the flight crew is somehow lax with security. Why are you assuming they will never make mistakes?

...and if a terrorist can at most sneak a pocket knife on board, and that's if he's lucky...

Ummm... why are you assuming that he'd need to be 'lucky' to sneak a weapon on board? Or that he'd be able to sneak at most a pocket knife?

Fact is, airport security does accidentally let weapons through security. Heck, here's a case of a guy who brought a gun into the airport by accident and they still managed to make it through security.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/23/airport.gun/index.html

Another possible solution would be for the government to make martial arts training free of charge for children for instance, so as to increase their interest in learning martial arts at a young age, maybe introducing them in public school. Even just simplified tai chi chuan would suffice for children looking for an easy martial art, as even that would still be better than nothing.

Why are you assuming martial arts would be some magical solution for our security problems?

- You are falsely assuming that such 'martial arts' training would be effective. Yet they'd be going against potential terrorists, who probably have training of their own, and unlike the pilot/passangers/air crew, probably have some real life experience dealing with conflict situations

- You are assuming that 'only' a small pocket knife would be the only thing that can be brought on board, when I've already shown that guns have made it through security, and at least twice in the past decade explosives were smuggled on board

[Machjo]

And another possible solution is to come to the realisation that driving to work in the morning is a far more dangerous ordeal than getting on an airliner anywhere, and we should stop friggin' worrying about it because that is exactly what they want.

NO we should not stop worrying about it.

If a person has irrational fears, he's a dangerous person to say the least. Now extend that to mass psychology, and a country experiencing irrational fears is a dangerous country.

Looking at it that way, if a child has irrational fears, you have to deal with that. Either you let him sleep in your bed for the night, buy him a night light for awhile, or go into the closet to show him nothing is there.

But you don't ignore those fears or there is no telling how people will respond.

So if people have fears of the outside, then we have o try to find ways to alleviate those fears. Look, 9/11 led to wars, debt, etc.

Obviously preventing 9/11 would also have prevented the fears. So if i'ts a choice between greater airport security and 9/11 type events which lead to thousands upon thousands of people dead on two continents over a decade, then I'd rather we have tougher airport security.

[Machjo]

What, you mean reinspect the passengers if we don't trust foreign security?

That won't help if the plane is hijacked en route to Canada, before it ever lands at a Canadian airport.

An F18 would be more than sufficient to shoot such a plane down. In fact, a simple surface to air missile launcher stationed on the coast could do that.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Machjo

[Machjo]

Which doesn't help if the flight crew is somehow lax with security. Why are you assuming they will never make mistakes?

For cryin' out loud, the average Toyota wil signal if you forget to lock your door.I'm sure an airplane could have the same feature, no?

[M.Dancer]

An F18 would be more than sufficient to shoot such a plane down. In fact, a simple surface to air missile launcher stationed on the coast could do that.

And flying around and out of its range will defeat it...

[Machjo]

Ummm... why are you assuming that he'd need to be 'lucky' to sneak a weapon on board? Or that he'd be able to sneak at most a pocket knife?

Fact is, airport security does accidentally let weapons through security. Heck, here's a case of a guy who brought a gun into the airport by accident and they still managed to make it through security.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/23/airport.gun/index.html

If that happened, again, F18s would be more than sufficient, and again even a surface to air missile launcher could deal with it in some cases.

And again, if the cockpit is safe, then while they could kill all the passengers, the pilots could still safely land at the airport. If they somehow get into the cockpit, then again F18 is more than enough.

[Machjo]

Why are you assuming martial arts would be some magical solution for our security problems?

- You are falsely assuming that such 'martial arts' training would be effective. Yet they'd be going against potential terrorists, who probably have training of their own, and unlike the pilot/passangers/air crew, probably have some real life experience dealing with conflict situations

- You are assuming that 'only' a small pocket knife would be the only thing that can be brought on board, when I've already shown that guns have made it through security, and at least twice in the past decade explosives were smuggled on board

And our current f18s can't handle that?

[Machjo]

And flying around and out of its range will defeat it...

Then have at least one such launcher stationed at each airport, each with a range covering 100k let's say.

Remember, airliners are not equipped with evasive devices.

[Handsome Rob]

NO we should not stop worrying about it.

If a person has irrational fears, he's a dangerous person to say the least. Now extend that to mass psychology, and a country experiencing irrational fears is a dangerous country.

Looking at it that way, if a child has irrational fears, you have to deal with that. Either you let him sleep in your bed for the night, buy him a night light for awhile, or go into the closet to show him nothing is there.

But you don't ignore those fears or there is no telling how people will respond.

So if people have fears of the outside, then we have o try to find ways to alleviate those fears. Look, 9/11 led to wars, debt, etc.

Obviously preventing 9/11 would also have prevented the fears. So if i'ts a choice between greater airport security and 9/11 type events which lead to thousands upon thousands of people dead on two continents over a decade, then I'd rather we have tougher airport security.

You're suggesting that such an event as knocking down a security-less stadium plaza at an NFL game and killing 30,000 people isn't going to invoke the same reaction?

The stick with airplanes because, they found a winner. Like a certain arms race bankrupting a certain soviet nation. They don't have to kill a single person and still walk away with ultimate victory.

Not to mention the problems related to fixing symptoms and not fixing people, but I guess it's our 'destiny' to get dumbed down into walking drones with a 32,000 page rule book of everything we're not allowed to do for our own safety.

Regardless, this thread is getting ridiculous.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[segnosaur]

And our current f18s can't handle that?

Our CF-18s can do an OK job. An F-35 can do a better job.

Remember, during 9/11, air traffic controllers lost track of the planes that were hijacked. (They had shut off their transponders and were not following pre-determined routes). When NORAD eventually scrambled planes, they were expected that they would have to do at least some searching.

The F-35 has a longer range and is slightly faster than the CF-18s we have. Should we have a situation where we have to intercept hijacked planes, we can do a better job if we can fly faster to where they are potentially located and if we can intercept them further out over water (in case they need to be tracked for any length of time.)

A Smart Car will do an 'ok' job of transporting you from point A to point B. But a more expensive car provides more options. Even if you think having those options isn't worth the money, they still have at least some value.

Now, if that were the only reason to buy the F-35, it might not be worth it, but its not... other reasons (potential to support allies in conflicts to protect innocents, eventual problems with maintenance) have already been discussed.

[segnosaur]

Then have at least one such launcher stationed at each airport, each with a range covering 100k let's say.

Except, as 9/11 has showed us, the airports themselves are not necessarily the targets. You'd have to have those magic missile launchers stationed at every potential target (potentially thousands).

Plus, the problem with missiles is that they don't allow visual confirmation. Remember Payne Stewart? He was a golfer who was in a private plane that went off course. NORAD used planes to visually confirm what had happened to the pilots.

Never mind the problem of potentially shooting down a plane over urban areas. Flaming wreckage anyone?

Remember, airliners are not equipped with evasive devices.

No, they are equipped with transponders. On 9/11, those transponders were turned off. Result: air traffic control could not find them (even without any sort of fancy acrobatics.)

[msdogfood]

The problem stems from the fact that those jets started rolling off the assembly line between 15-30 years ago. When we start retiring our hornets 10-15 years from now, they're going to run into the same problem we have right now.

Need a car, do you buy a 2010 Accord or a 1976 Rambler to save money in the near term? Do you buy milk that's going to expire tomorrow to save a few bucks?

The F-35 is the choice out of necessity. There aren't any viable alternatives. What is the point of saving a billion dollars today, if we're going to spend it in a decade doing the same thing, in addition to the frightening costs in the billions of retraining pilots & crew on new equipment?

OK but did you see the updated The info on the Future gripen Gripen NG

Edited June 10, 2010 by msdogfood

[Bonam]

Canadas main limitation is the jet stream air current. Its dangerous and very unpredictable to pass an object through an area of 5km of 100 to 400 km/h winds. If you launch something not from the equator, not only do you waste more energy (the whole point of having an elevator is to save energy, not waste it) there is a good chance that it will not be in the spot you want it, simply due to wind (much like a shuttle launch on a windy day, which they will not do) No, a space elevator should and must be near the equator for maximum effectiveness.

You're talking to someone who actually did a design study on building a space elevator. I'm certainly aware of the issues and agree that an equatorial location is optimal. I was simply pointing out that technically, a space elevator could indeed be built in Canada. Even with a non-equatorial location, ascending a space elevator would be far more economical (after the construction costs had been recouped) than launching a rocket.

A sea elevator is also not a good idea, it costs far too much for ship infrastructure or oilrig type of platform. A real island is the best answer by far.

Actually many serious studies of the space elevator have focused exactly on building it on an artificial ocean structure. The cost of something like an oilrig platform is almost negligible compared to some of the other technical costs of the elevator, such as the production of the necessary amount of carbon nanotubes or the launch into orbit of the initial ribbon deployment satellite. Political, security, and military, costs of building an elevator could perhaps be even higher. An ocean platform is actually optimal for this since it adds substantial extra security as compared to building it on land.

Geostationary spy satellites can give very accurate results down to .09 meters. Maybe I should have said three satellites. Plane surveillance systems are actually less accurate, as although they are closer, they are moving and have things like engine shudder and turbulence to compensate for.

Geostationary satellites orbit above the equator and cannot get good imagery of high latitude locations. Additionally they offer far lower resolution than lower orbiting satellites due to their distance. They are also much more expensive as reaching geostationary orbit requires a larger launch vehicle, and the satellites themselves much have much larger power systems and equipment for communications and surveillance. Lastly, geostationary orbit is already extremely crowded because (unlike other orbits) it is one exactly defined 1-dimensional ring surrounding the Earth, and is very popular for communication satellites. Getting a slot for a geostationary satellite is not trivial, especially when you are a country without its own launch capabilities.

Plane systems usually are not able to detect ICBMs, satellites can (Infrared detection high atmosphere along the horizon)

Plane systems aren't for detecting ICBMs, they are for real time continuous surveillance of areas with active operations.

The era of the fighter and recon plane is over, its in many ways already obsolete. The govt is focusing on proper priorities like farmers who buy 2 tonnes of aluminum nitrate, and moving directly to space dominance (if we want to)

The recon plane era is pretty much over, I agree, but not because it was replaced with satellites. Rather, recon of this type is now done with drones. The era of the fighter plane is not yet over though it will be in the future as combat drones allow the same range of capabilities without risking a human pilot. Canada has not yet invested anything substantive in "space dominance" and with our typical outdated thinking will not do so until well after other nations have already done it.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Bonam

[segnosaur]

OK but did you see the updated The info on the Future gripen Gripen NG

The Gripen NG does seem to be a good plane. (It looks to be slightly faster than the F-35, although even with the more powerful engine I'm not sure if it would have anywhere near the same carrying capacity or range. Also not sure if it has the same stealth characteristics as the F-35. And no, I'm not expecting the 'terrorists' to have advanced radar capability, but we may be in situations where we are involved in combat with countries with at least some technological capability.)

I'd be curious about the final cost of the new Gripen though... the page you linked to doesn't give final cost, and I haven't yet found any references anywhere else.