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

[justme]

It's not, and we can't afford carriers...or man them. As for the destroyers and supply ships, they will be replaced, and not that far in the future. That's the point of the new procurement system. There will be no more lengthly tendering processes in 2 years.

A large carrier like a Nimitz would be too much, yes, but not a smaller carrier like the Wasp. My understanding is that the cost is about a billion, but the cost of each JSS is supposed to be $700 million and the hold up is that they can't find anyone to make it for that price. In other words, they'll either have to spend more or cut the number of JSS built from 3 to 2.

The new Conservative Party government kept the JSS program, and followed the competition procedure to narrow the contest down to just 2 bidders: ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, and SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc.

In the end, however, the specifications, design, and budget simply could not be made to agree. The JSS project is currently in limbo. A solution is required, and soon, but successfully executing one will demand a rethink of the project’s main premises.

April 13/09: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News obtains copies of the Canadian Forces’ 2009-2010 Maritime Staff Capability Plan, in which navy Commodore Kelly Williams warns that maintaining the Navy’s existing 40 year-old supply ships will be problematic....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project-updated-02392/

So the navy will continue to use ships that are already 40 years old for the forseeable future. The destroyers are about 30 years old with no sign of a replacement as well.

[M.Dancer]

A large carrier like a Nimitz would be too much, yes, but not a smaller carrier like the Wasp.

Ummm the Wasp was sunk in 1942

[bush_cheney2004]

Ummm the Wasp was sunk in 1942

Damn! Another post about Israel and Palestine.

[Smallc]

So the navy will continue to use ships that are already 40 years old for the forseeable future. The destroyers are about 30 years old with no sign of a replacement as well.

The entire point of the new procurement system, which was rolled out and will be in place in 2 years, is to make sure all of the ships get replaced. One shipyard will build combat ships, and one non combat ships. Small ships (under 1000 tons) will be done the old way. The destroyers will get built, as will the JSS, and the AOPS...we just have to wait a couple of years.

[wyly]

A large carrier like a Nimitz would be too much, yes, but not a smaller carrier like the Wasp. My understanding is that the cost is about a billion, but the cost of each JSS is supposed to be $700 million and the hold up is that they can't find anyone to make it for that price. In other words, they'll either have to spend more or cut the number of JSS built from 3 to 2.

So the navy will continue to use ships that are already 40 years old for the forseeable future. The destroyers are about 30 years old with no sign of a replacement as well.

we need an offensive weapon like a carrier for what reason?....we need heavy ice capable coast guard patrol craft and unless we're going to actually develop the arctic we don't even need those...

[dre]

we need an offensive weapon like a carrier for what reason?....we need heavy ice capable coast guard patrol craft and unless we're going to actually develop the arctic we don't even need those...

Which gets to the heart of the matter.

If the goal here to maintain sovereighty over the arctic that 10 billion dollars would be WAY better spent by developing resources up there, to strenthen our claim.

[justme]

Ummm the Wasp was sunk in 1942

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/06/29/ns-queen-navy-review.html?ref=rss

[bush_cheney2004]

...If the goal here to maintain sovereighty over the arctic that 10 billion dollars would be WAY better spent by developing resources up there, to strenthen our claim.

Sorry...that is not the goal when trying to replace aging high performance tactical aircraft. See NATO and NORAD.

[justme]

we need an offensive weapon like a carrier for what reason?....we need heavy ice capable coast guard patrol craft and unless we're going to actually develop the arctic we don't even need those...

It's not so much the carrier that is offensive, but what it can carry, which can be a variety of things, but yes, the military does and should have offensive weapons -- go figure. They aren't boy scouts.

[segnosaur]

Osama has fleet of bombers and is going to sink Ellesmere Island???

You know, this isn't the first time that type of claim has been made. Its been debunked. Over and over again. The fact that you keep raising it shows how empty your arguments are.

While we don't expect terrorists to obtain fighter jets, we should maintain a military capable of handling multiple threats.

we need an f35 to shoot down a commercial airliner???? 1960's technology could do that just fine...

Except planes that were actually built in the 60s are probably not in production, and whatever ones that are airworthy would have a very limited lifespan. Eventually planes do need to be replaced you know.

And while there may be new planes that are cheaper than the F35, they are usually less capable. Some of us would rather have a plane capable of handling anything we ask of it, rather than, several years down the road, saying "We can't do that because we bought cheap-ass planes".

there are many countries that cannot protect themselves and no one is taking their resources...what country anywhere has moved drilling rigs into another countries claimed territorial waters?

And what country has attempted to fish in another's territorial waters? Oh right! Portugal did a few years ago in Canada.

the only country in the world that challenges our ownership of the NWP is the USA...certianly not the Russian they recognize our claims.

I think other posters have done an admirable job of pointing out how its not just the U.S. that has disputes over the North West Passage.

Not to mention that the arctic is not the only place that we have to deal with territorial issues. The "Turbot war" is evidence of that.

As for the russians... You do realize that they were sending military planes into Canadian airspace as recently as 2009. So while they may respect our claims to the North West Passage (for now at least... although I'd like to know how you can predict the future...) they must still be dealt with. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/593987

want to bring our troops home alive... good idea, let's start by not sending them to stupid wars that are none of our business and that we cannot win...

I see...

So, does that mean you had no moral objection to the massacres and crimes against humanity that were happening in Kosovo? After all, NATO forces (including Canada) helped stop the killing of civilians.

If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

Edited June 30, 2010 by segnosaur

[Smallc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/06/29/ns-queen-navy-review.html?ref=rss

That's far more than we need. We are already short 1500 sailors (the only branch with a personnel shortage) and we would need to buy more helicopters and....it's just too much for right now. The JSS is a good idea for what we need if it can be carried through (which it will be, just a bit late).

[segnosaur]

Which gets to the heart of the matter.

If the goal here to maintain sovereighty over the arctic that 10 billion dollars would be WAY better spent by developing resources up there, to strenthen our claim.

Perhaps if that were the only goal. But there are a lot of things that we will expect our military to do.

1) Protecting arctic claims is one

2) Protecting other territorial waters (e.g. fishing areas off the coasts)

3) Interception of foreign planes and/or hijacked airliners in Canadian airspace

4) if we should want to get involved in a conflict (for example, if it has humanitarian value, such as in Kosovo)

Personally I want them to get the plane that gives them the most options, rather than buying a cheaper plane and then saying "we can't do that" should the future need arise.

[M.Dancer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_%28LHD-1%29

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/06/29/ns-queen-navy-review.html?ref=rss

You said aircraft carrier. That is not an aircraft carrier....

[dre]

Perhaps if that were the only goal. But there are a lot of things that we will expect our military to do.

1) Protecting arctic claims is one

2) Protecting other territorial waters (e.g. fishing areas off the coasts)

3) Interception of foreign planes and/or hijacked airliners in Canadian airspace

4) if we should want to get involved in a conflict (for example, if it has humanitarian value, such as in Kosovo)

Personally I want them to get the plane that gives them the most options, rather than buying a cheaper plane and then saying "we can't do that" should the future need arise.

Personally I want them to get the plane that gives them the most options, rather than buying a cheaper plane and then saying "we can't do that" should the future need arise.

I want them to only borrow money to buy things theres a strong likelyhood we will need.

[Smallc]

I want them to only borrow money to buy things theres a strong likelyhood we will need.

There's a strong likelihood we'll need them. Being part of NORAD pretty much necessitates them on its own.

[segnosaur]

Personally I want them to get the plane that gives them the most options, rather than buying a cheaper plane and then saying "we can't do that" should the future need arise.

I want them to only borrow money to buy things theres a strong likelyhood we will need.

Well, we've been involved in 3 "wars" since the mid-90s (Kosovo, Gulf War 1, and Afghanistan). Most people do see those wars as having at least some morally justifiable purpose. I believe our planes were only used in 2 of them in a fighter/bomber role (but they could have been used in Afghanistan too). Works out to a conflict every 5-10 years. If we bought cheaper fighters (Like the Swedish one mentioned earlier) we would not have been able to participate since I believe that plane was a fighter only.

But then, it depends on how you define 'need'. If you don't think we in the western world have a need to help the disadvantaged in the world then we don't 'need' the more expensive plane.

And Canadian planes do make regular interceptions of Russian planes. So we do need some fighter to handle those cases. (And having a fighter with more range/speed lets them do their job better).

[Smallc]

(And having a fighter with more range/speed lets them do their job better).

Well, they have more range...but not more speed...they're quite slow actually. They won't keep up with a CF-188, and it's already slower than many fighters.

[wyly]

It's not so much the carrier that is offensive, but what it can carry, which can be a variety of things, but yes, the military does and should have offensive weapons -- go figure. They aren't boy scouts.

carriers are offensive in that they project control away from your country into other countries sphere of influence, they aren't needed to defend, carriers are the tools of agressive imperialistic countries...

[Smallc]

carriers are offensive in that they project control away from your country into other countries sphere of influence, they aren't needed to defend, carriers are the tools of agressive imperialistic countries...

They can also be used for humanitarianism and conflict intervention, as is usually the case. Very seldom in recent times have they been used as platforms of attack.

[M.Dancer]

Very seldom in recent times have they been used as platforms of attack.

True, aside from the Liberation of the Falklands, Libya, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, both Iraqi wars, the Balkans and Afghanistan....most wars are fought without them

[Smallc]

That wasn't my point.....

[M.Dancer]

That wasn't my point.....

Yes I know...you were trying to portray the world's most deadly, most powerful naval vessel as a humanitarian asset.

I was just showing that ...that is not what they are.

[wyly]

You know, this isn't the first time that type of claim has been made. Its been debunked. Over and over again. The fact that you keep raising it shows how empty your arguments are.

While we don't expect terrorists to obtain fighter jets, we should maintain a military capable of handling multiple threats.

that you repeatedly don't comprehend it shows what? slow on the uptake are you?... the purchase of the F35 was justified (among other reasons)as defense against hijacked airliners in the arctic, and just what are those hijacked airliners going to attack? and if such a scenario were to come about we don't need a F35 to take down an airliner....

Except planes that were actually built in the 60s are probably not in production, and whatever ones that are airworthy would have a very limited lifespan. Eventually planes do need to be replaced you know.

we don't need anything as expensive as the F35 to patrol the arctic...

And while there may be new planes that are cheaper than the F35, they are usually less capable. Some of us would rather have a plane capable of handling anything we ask of it, rather than, several years down the road, saying "We can't do that because we bought cheap-ass planes".

and just what in the last 65years have we needed to handle?... there won't be a war with any country that is that well equiped(Russia/China), any war we become involved in will be with under equiped 2nd and 3rd rate powers or insurgents...the F35 is overkill

And what country has attempted to fish in another's territorial waters? Oh right! Portugal did a few years ago in Canada.

and a F35 is going to stop that how???? that's why we have Fisheries patrol boats and a Coast Guard...

I think other posters have done an admirable job of pointing out how its not just the U.S. that has disputes over the North West Passage.

and Canada is going to use the F35 to sink the next american ship that challenges our authority and sails through the NWP, rrright and when they start lining up super tankers full of crude oil to sail through the passage we're going to sink those with F35s too

Not to mention that the arctic is not the only place that we have to deal with territorial issues. The "Turbot war" is evidence of that.

again fisheries issue you have trouble telling the difference between a ship and a F35...a F35 is going to do what to a fishing boat???yes that's right nothing...

As for the russians... You do realize that they were sending military planes into Canadian airspace as recently as 2009. So while they may respect our claims to the North West Passage (for now at least... although I'd like to know how you can predict the future...) they must still be dealt with. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/593987

can you even comprehend your links...at no time did a russian airplane EVER enter our airspace

from your link " NORAD's Kucharek said ----- Moscow began flying its old Cold War routes in late 2006, he said, but have always remained in international airspace." they have no need to fly over canada to spy they can do the same as I do, consult Google Earth

So, does that mean you had no moral objection to the massacres and crimes against humanity that were happening in Kosovo? After all, NATO forces (including Canada) helped stop the killing of civilians.

and a F35 prevents this how????

If you were around in the late 30s/early 40s, would you have also objected to Canada participating in World war 2? After all, the war was way over in Europe, and we weren't at risk of getting invaded.

and I'll ask again the question you nor anyone else can/will answer, just who is going to invade us? and why are they going to invade us?...you have no clue let alone an answer... Edited July 1, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

They can also be used for humanitarianism and conflict intervention, as is usually the case. Very seldom in recent times have they been used as platforms of attack.

that's a very utopian view smallc you have good heart ...their purpose is force projection...

[Smallc]

Yes I know...you were trying to portray the world's most deadly, most powerful naval vessel as a humanitarian asset.

Which they very much are. They are also used for force projection (their primary purpose), but it isn't their only purpose, and more and more they are used for other things....but you're right, I was being a bit...revisionist.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Smallc