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

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

Not true....the Tomahawk cruise missile is subsonic and vunerable to accurate AA as well as any modern fighter with look down-shoot down radar.

[GostHacked]

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.

We use them here in Canada to protect Canada's sovereignty. That is and will always be their primary and most important role. You don't need to be at war to understand that a well equipped standing military is something that all countries want and need to possess.

[Bonam]

Plus there's always the upcoming invasions of Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. :angry:

[ZenOps]

Not true....the Tomahawk cruise missile is subsonic and vunerable to accurate AA as well as any modern fighter with look down-shoot down radar.

Yeah, a Tomahawk wouldn't even be noticed nevermind be shot down.

You can go two ways, sneaky or fast.

Launched off a submarine or the deck of a warship. I hope that fighter can take off and reach the target in less than 90 seconds, because its going to take sonar/radar 2 minutes to determine a launch, and two minutes to go through the chain of command to agree to launch the interception.

IE: An SLBM like the M51, will be travelling at mach 15.

Offshore launch means less than five minutes. ICBM you have 18 minutes.

And at interception, you will probably be going several mach directly into it, which is coming directly at you at several mach. In order to effectively shoot it down, you should be chasing the missle at its speed (from behind), which easily adds quite a few more minutes.

Reagan had the right idea with Star Wars, but even so it would never hit 50% of any incoming missles (assuming a 10,000 or more along with chaff empty head missles as well) We would be lucky - to hit 10.

Edited June 19, 2010 by ZenOps

[ZenOps]

We use them here in Canada to protect Canada's sovereignty. That is and will always be their primary and most important role. You don't need to be at war to understand that a well equipped standing military is something that all countries want and need to possess.

That is the main reason, and a good one. Canada as a nation can never break away from the monarchy until it has a basic military presence. The Queen may well want Canada to be independant, but not if its going to be run over the second they let go of it.

Symbolic MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is not totally necessary, but some abililty to take on aggressors without foreign aid is important.

Its similar to the issue/problem with Tibet. If China left today, there would be a dozen other nations looking to subjugate it tomorrow (and don't say it wouldn't be a fascist Euro nation, because history tells everyone different).

Calgary was not all that long ago, Fort Calgary - a military garrison/outpost. Fort McMurray is still aptly named.

Edited June 19, 2010 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, a Tomahawk wouldn't even be noticed nevermind be shot down.

How many Tomahawks have you launched? Several were shot down during the Gulf War by Iraq with ground fire because they had redundant ingress profiles.

You can go two ways, sneaky or fast.

Launched off a submarine or the deck of a warship. I hope that fighter can take off and reach the target in less than 90 seconds, because its going to take sonar/radar 2 minutes to determine a launch, and two minutes to go through the chain of command to agree to launch the interception.

Not if the fighter assets are already flying a CAP mission.

IE: An SLBM like the M51, will be travelling at mach 15.

Offshore launch means less than five minutes. ICBM you have 18 minutes.

And at interception, you will probably be going several mach directly into it, which is coming directly at you at several mach. In order to effectively shoot it down, you should be chasing the missle at its speed (from behind), which easily adds quite a few more minutes.

No, that is not what a SLBM mission profile looks like. There is a boost phase and ballistic phase with re-entry body deployment. Intercepts with missiles armed with nuclear warheads was possible 50 years ago.

Reagan had the right idea with Star Wars, but even so it would never hit 50% of any incoming missles (assuming a 10,000 or more along with chaff empty head missles as well) We would be lucky - to hit 10.

Of course....but your initial premise is still false. These weapons can be "shot down".

[Wilber]

The aircraft the F-35 is designed to replace went into service during the late sixties. If it has as long a career it will be a hell of a machine.

[ZenOps]

Thats just it, these planes are designed to replace another plane from the '60s.

If you said that you were replacing your buggy and whip from the 60's with another buggy and whip, I'd think it might be a concern. Or better yet, the military is upgrading their 9.6 kilobit modems, with 33.6 kilobit modems! Yay!

Stealth is of course - only truely effective 'before' war starts. Tomahawks and B2 bombers are not designed for use 'during' war (because how can you be stealthy once the enemy knows you are firing on them?) unless you are testing them. And the Gulf is just a test war for the real deal - nuke equipped Tomahawks on pre-emptive strike.

SLBM's actually have both technologies, the M51 specs include a radar scattering head (they determined that putting radar absorbing material did not work on an object that flys at Mach 15)

Most fighter jets max out at around Mach 2.5

Edited June 19, 2010 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

...Stealth is of course - only truely effective before war starts. Tomahawks and B2 bombers are not often used during war (because how can you be stealthy once the enemy knows you are firing on them?) unless you are testing them. And the Gulf is just a test war for the real deal - nuke equipped Tomahawks on pre-emptive strike.

The nuclear warhead variant of the TLAM was removed from service in 1992.

[Oleg Bach]

The most greedy and most cowardly are the most interested in weapons.

[xul]

I find the complaints about how this is a "no bid" contract near the start of the thread hilarious. Just how many different companies do you think there are that can provide F-35 Lightning IIs Joint Strike Fighters? There is exactly one supplier, and it is the pretty much the world's most advanced single seat fighter.

You did get the point.

Not only Harper but also Bush and Obama have no power to negotiate a fair price of F-35 from the CEO and MBAs of Lockheed Martin because they were facing a monopolistic supplier. I'm suspicious that the raise of the price of F-35 is just for spitting on Obama's and Gates's faces for the cancellation of the orders of the rest of F-22s. It is still unbelievable to me that the Pentagon did have put all its eggs in one basket. The unnegotiable price is only one aspect of the headache. What would happen if the plane had some flaw so it had to be suspended from flight for several months during in service? The airspace of the most of NATO members would be defenceless, and even America itself would have to count on merely 184 F-22s.

If Pliny was the Secretary of Defence of America, I think he would bring the generals who made the decision to court-martial for they had gone to communism further than any Soviet generals--who at least had two suppliers to supply fighters for their AF all the time.

Edited June 19, 2010 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

...If Pliny was the Secretary of Defence of America, I think he would bring the generals who made the decision to court-martial for they had gone to communism further than any Soviet generals--who at least had two suppliers to supply fighters for their AF all the time.

A lot of good that did them...Soviet Union no longer exists.

[Moonbox]

You did get the point.

Not only Harper but also Bush and Obama have no power to negotiate a fair price of F-35 from the CEO and MBAs of Lockheed Martin because they were facing a monopolistic supplier.

There are numerous fighter manufacturers in the US. The US military makes them compete for the best design. Once the best design is determined and you start production, that's the end of the competition. We're not talking about bartering for goats or anything here. We're talking about aircraft that take 10+ years to develop and will be in service for 30+ years.

I'm suspicious that the raise of the price of F-35 is just for spitting on Obama's and Gates's faces for the cancellation of the orders of the rest F-22s. It is still unbelievable to me that the Pentagon did have put all its eggs in one basket.

Your suspicion is pretty dumb then. The manufacturers live and die on the goodwill of the US military and its administration and any move like that would be like biting the hand that feeds you. The F-35 itself largely based on F-22 design anyways.

As for all the eggs in one basket, it's called economies of scale. If you can get one fighter to do the job of 4 different designs, you save ass tons of money.

What would happen if the plane had some flaw so it had to be suspended from flight for several months during in service? The airspace of the most of NATO members would be defenceless, and even America itself would have to count on merely 184 F-22s.

Why don't you leave that up to the science geniuses who designed the plane and the years of testing they do on it?

[ZenOps]

The most greedy and most cowardly are the most interested in weapons.

Of course. How do you think Britain and France managed to capture half of the world. How did the US become independant?

Greed is good.

I don't think it should be an argument about the morality of war. This is morality about spending way too much. Like buying a Rolls Royce, when you just need a guy on a bicycle to deliver something.

Canada is a small population nation. Billions means a lot to a military. If you divvied up the money into wages for a standing ground army, I don't know - it would sure make a whole lot of privates happy.

"Spending money on military is a self fulfilling prophecy for war"

Edited June 19, 2010 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

There are numerous fighter manufacturers in the US. The US military makes them compete for the best design. Once the best design is determined and you start production, that's the end of the competition. We're not talking about bartering for goats or anything here. We're talking about aircraft that take 10+ years to develop and will be in service for 30+ years.

Correct....the JSF program was a competition between Boeing's X-32 and LM's X-35. Production cannot begin until several phases of prototype build, low rate production (LRIP), and qualification trials are completed. Various parts of the contract are fixed price or cost plus depending on the manufacturer and subcontractor to prime.

Your suspicion is pretty dumb then. The manufacturers live and die on the goodwill of the US military and its administration and any move like that would be like biting the hand that feeds you. The F-35 itself largely based on F-22 design anyways.

Yep....just a "cheaper" derivative and compromise for multi-mission roles and service applications.

As for all the eggs in one basket, it's called economies of scale. If you can get one fighter to do the job of 4 different designs, you save ass tons of money.

You're batting 1.00 so far....see McDonell Douglas F-4 Phantom II.

Why don't you leave that up to the science geniuses who designed the plane and the years of testing they do on it?

Air superiority...no one does it better.

[xul]

The US military makes them compete for the best design. Once the best design is determined and you start production, that's the end of the competition. We're not talking about bartering for goats or anything here. We're talking about aircraft that take 10+ years to develop and will be in service for 30+ years.

When people speak of a "best design", usually they are talking about not only its technical aspect but also its economical aspect. I'm not a MBA-kind but I think it is the common knowledge that if someone have to choose a supplier which he will have to count on it for 30+ years and which will be practically irreplaceable, it will be better that he has an alternative supplier becasue he can not have terms in the contract to fix the price in such long period, so keeping the competition all the time not only at the beginning is vital to guarantee the buyer's long-term interests.

The manufacturers live and die on the goodwill of the US military and its administration and any move like that would be like biting the hand that feeds you. The F-35 itself largely based on F-22 design anyways.

The manufacturers live and die on the goodwill of the US military but not on a certain administration because the certain administation's term is merely 4 or 8 years. And I think you should notice that what the army guys want is not always coincident with what their political bosses want.

Maybe once Bush-kind come back, Lockheed Martin will be award more order just for it spits on Obama administration's face becasue the cancellation of F-22 is just an action of spitting on the face of Bush administration's decision.

As for all the eggs in one basket, it's called economies of scale. If you can get one fighter to do the job of 4 different designs, you save ass tons of money.

I think this is the viewpoint of bjre in another discussion---if Baidu can offer what Chinese need, why should they prefer that there should be a Google or more to make them having choice?

Technically, if F-35 is a variant of F-22, just as F-16C/D are the variants of F-16A/B, there will be a economic advantage by choosing the same manufacturer because the most of parts of the planes are exchangeable. But I don't think F-35 is a variant of F-22.

Why don't you leave that up to the science geniuses who designed the plane and the years of testing they do on it?

Because if everyone agreeded with this, democracy would no longer have reason to exist.....

Edited June 19, 2010 by xul

[xul]

Air superiority...no one does it better.

There are not any science geniuses who never make mistake.

Air Force suspends some F-15 operations

11/4/2007 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force suspended non-mission critical F-15 flight operations on Nov. 3 following the crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C aircraft Nov. 2.

The cause of that accident is still under investigation, however, preliminary findings indicate that a possible structural failure of the aircraft may have occurred. The suspension of flight operations is a precautionary measure.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are not any science geniuses who never make mistake.

Has less to do with science and more to do with applied physics. F-15C fuselages have thousands of hours on them.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Maybe once Bush-kind come back, Lockheed Martin will be award more order just for it spits on Obama administration's face becasue the cancellation of F-22 is just an action of spitting on the face of Bush administration's decision.

Maybe you need history lesson....F-22 program is older than Bush Administration:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/july99/fighterjet22.htm

[xul]

Maybe you need history lesson....F-22 program is older than Bush Administration:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/july99/fighterjet22.htm

I know the F-22 project had been started before Bush administration, maybe even before another Bush administration . But I'm sure the plan of purchasing additional F-22s over the original planned 183 fighters(that was Clinton administration's plan) was proposed during Bush administration.

[ZenOps]

The nuclear warhead variant of the TLAM was removed from service in 1992.

This is a good point. Tomahawks are starting to go the way of horse and buggy as well.

Really only useful in one or two instances, pre-emptive strikes on things like radar stations.

Nukes were moved to SLBM's a long time ago because the chances of knocking down a SLBM (especially one with a radar scattering head that creates ghost radar images) is infinitesimally small and much quicker. Its so fast, that even a modern military nation will not have chance to blink - before a defense can be activated.

Bombers, fighters and cruise missles are soon to hit the museum.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know the F-22 project had been started before Bush administration, maybe even before another Bush administration . But I'm sure the plan of purchasing additional F-22s over the original planned 183 fighters(that was Clinton administration's plan) was proposed during Bush administration.

That means you did not know of the original ATF procurment plan going far back to 1991:

In August 1991, the YF-22 was declared the winner. The F-22 passed milestone II in 1991. The System Operational Requirements document was validated by the Air Force and the Department of Defense (DOD) during the 1991 Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) Milestone II review.

At that time, the Air Force planned to acquire 648

F-22 operational aircraft at a cost of $86.6 billion. After the Bottom Up Review, completed by DOD in September 1993, the planned quantity of F-22s was reduced to 442 at an estimated cost of $71.6 billion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-history.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a good point. Tomahawks are starting to go the way of horse and buggy as well.

Not at all...Tactical Tomahawk will extend the design to in-flight mission updates, loitering on station, TV surveillence, and anti-shipping a la Harpoon.

Really only useful in one or two instances, pre-emptive strikes on things like radar stations.

Iraqi power plants, substations, communications complexes, and arms depots disagree.

Nukes were moved to SLBM's a long time ago because the chances of knocking down a SLBM (especially one with a radar scattering head that creates ghost radar images) is infinitesimally small and much quicker. Its so fast, that even a modern military nation will not have chance to blink - before a defense can be activated.

Penetration aids are very old re-entry body defense and tactic.

Bombers, fighters and cruise missles are soon to hit the museum.

They are already in museums...replaced by newer, more capable versions.

[maple_leafs182]

yes, lets spend more money on war machines, at this rate, global peace is just around the corner...

[ZenOps]

Fighter planes being more capable of? Shooting down other fighter planes? Yes. But its hard not to see the redundancy in that. Especially now that planes carry nothing of military value anymore.

Now you can argue that if you want to enter the knight joust competition, you have to have and spend money on a full suit of armor and a really long lance. And if thats the case - then the airplanes are important for symbolic superiority.

But one can just as easily put the money toward a symbolic sports team, like a soccer team and have them fight for symbolic superiority on the sports field. Even Hitler put money into sports as much as military.

And this govt seems to be all about "superiority". Owning the podium was enough already - buying some symbolic fighters to use in the last war where they are probably valid (Afghanistan) as slightly useable weapons seems a little misguided.

Edited June 20, 2010 by ZenOps